The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[NG3]

I know the tax payer foots the bill for the Police operation, but forgive the stupid question is it normal for the evicted owner to foot the bill for any security after he has been evicted?

It's case by case. Sometimes it's written off if there's little chance of collection, other times it's pursued vigorously.

[Skeleton]

I know the tax payer foots the bill for the Police operation, but forgive the stupid question is it normal for the evicted owner to foot the bill for any security after he has been evicted?

It's case by case. Sometimes it's written off if there's little chance of collection, other times it's pursued vigorously.

Cheers, waiting game then.

[NG3]

Cheers, waiting game then.

We'll know when the Crawford's get the letter because they'll no doubt announce it's contents on Facebook, but until then, as you say, it's a waiting game.

[ArthurWankspittle]

There was supposedly between 6 and 10 men there at any one time and a few dog teams. Security like this usually charge out at around £15 per hour. The dog teams would be something like £25 an hour. Given that they were there for approx 32 days you could be looking at well over £100k for that alone.

I think the 6 to 10 men came from a post by Amanda, and, given her skill at counting passing Police helicopters, is likely a gross overestimate. Still, even if we hack back the figures to ridiculously low levels, it explains why B&B sold the place asap:

Average 2 security at £15 per hour is £720 per day. 32 days is £23,040

Say 1 dog teams at £25 per hour is £600 per day. 32 days is £19,200

CCTV costs? I’ve no idea but it must be £2000 for hire, fitment and all the recording etc.

With subsistence etc. dismantling costs say £50,000. 4 men and a dog instead of 3 and a dog and that figure becomes £61,500.

Assuming Sue's mum's house is worth a similar amount to a non-trashed 3 Fearn Chase, they just wiped out the equity in both houses.

[Losleones]

I know the tax payer foots the bill for the Police operation, but forgive the stupid question is it normal for the evicted owner to foot the bill for any security after he has been evicted? Not defending him far from it, just want to be sure before i crow a little more.

I raised this issue on the other Crawford thread & can't see it myself. If the property is back in the hands of UKAR & they made the decision to install 24/7 security on their property how can they pursue Tom for the bill?

Obviously Tom & rent a mob idiots brought this about & one would have little sympathy if the bill was presented to Tom & Sue due to their shenanigans but i can't see it happening as they weren't the owners when security was drafted in.

[Skeleton]

I know the tax payer foots the bill for the Police operation, but forgive the stupid question is it normal for the evicted owner to foot the bill for any security after he has been evicted? Not defending him far from it, just want to be sure before i crow a little more.

I raised this issue on the other Crawford thread & can't see it myself. If the property is back in the hands of UKAR & they made the decision to install 24/7 security on their property how can they pursue Tom for the bill?

Obviously Tom & rent a mob idiots brought this about & one would have little sympathy if the bill was presented to Tom & Sue due to their shenanigans but i can't see it happening as they weren't the owners when security was drafted in.

Not that i would ever be in that position but that would be my defence, why are you billing me, i don't own the house? But this is Tom if he does get the letter he will come up with some suicidal defence that is bound to fail and the saga will continue.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Obviously Tom & rent a mob idiots brought this about & one would have little sympathy if the bill was presented to Tom & Sue due to their shenanigans but i can't see it happening as they weren't the owners when security was drafted in.

The mortgage contract will say something like mortgagor is liable for all costs associated with selling the place for the mortgagee to get their money back. The B&B can make the case that they would get less for the property if they sold it with rent-a-mob in possession that with it empty. Tom and Sue could actually challenge this in court and have some chance of getting the bill reduced, but not until after the event and the final account is concluded and issued to everyone concerned.

[JonnyL]

I've posted relevant links on other threads plenty of times on here, all costs for securing and maintaining the property will be dropped on Tom & Sue unless the UKAR decide to write it off, which I honestly don't think they will. They would have secured the property in that manner both due to advice from the police and previous experience. UKAR aren't going to lose money on this repossession, that's for sure. Tom is liable for mortgage and interest payments too until it's sold, conveyancing fees the lot, every penny will be deducted from the sale price, if money is still owed they'll pursue him for it. I think realistically the house probably sold for £65-£70k, he might end up still owing £15k, they'll chase Tom & Sue and bankrupt them for that as Tom would never enter into a payment agreement.

[Skeleton]

I've posted relevant links on other threads plenty of times on here, all costs for securing and maintaining the property will be dropped on Tom & Sue unless the UKAR decide to write it off, which I honestly don't think they will. They would have secured the property in that manner both due to advice from the police and previous experience. UKAR aren't going to lose money on this repossession, that's for sure. Tom is liable for mortgage and interest payments too until it's sold, conveyancing fees the lot, every penny will be deducted from the sale price, if money is still owed they'll pursue him for it. I think realistically the house probably sold for £65-£70k, he might end up still owing £15k, they'll chase Tom & Sue and bankrupt them for that as Tom would never enter into a payment agreement.

Makes sense to me so won't to Tom and his family, it also maybe why were not still getting pourings of out grief from Goofy land and in particular its leaders. Time to distance themselves from the really big fall.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Interesting dilemma for Tom and Sue. They are waiting for the outcome of the trial of the six accused of criminal damage. If anyone is found guilty in this criminal trial, it will be a formality to sue them for the damage done to the house in a civil court or it will be an obvious insurance claim. If the Crawfords don't sue after the criminal case we are left with only two conclusions:
1. The Crawfords are happy to have complete strangers come round and damage their property and do nothing about it.
or
2. The Crawfords didn't own the house at that point in time.

[JonnyL]

Somebody pointed out on a previous thread that there's been nearlly 3 years of non payments to the account, at £300pm that's a further £9k added to the £43k plus UKAR legal costs plus all of this security and selling fees. It really has to be the most self destructive course of action I've ever witnessed, so much so that I'm left questioning whether what I'm seeing is actually real, or some fake poorly scripted Psy Op.

[Skeleton]

Interesting dilemma for Tom and Sue. They are waiting for the outcome of the trial of the six accused of criminal damage. If anyone is found guilty in this criminal trial, it will be a formality to sue them for the damage done to the house in a civil court or it will be an obvious insurance claim. If the Crawfords don't sue after the criminal case we are left with only two conclusions:
1. The Crawfords are happy to have complete strangers come round and damage their property and do nothing about it.
or
2. The Crawfords didn't own the house at that point in time.

But Tom or was it Amanda, matters not said they did as Crawford's name was sill on the Land Registry. Whoever is supplying them that information BTW is taking one heck of a risk with their job. Once is bad enough but it seems to have become almost routine, someone, somewhere, will eventually notice.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Somebody pointed out on a previous thread that there's been nearlly 3 years of non payments to the account, at £300pm that's a further £9k added to the £43k plus UKAR legal costs plus all of this security and selling fees. It really has to be the most self destructive course of action I've ever witnessed, so much so that I'm left questioning whether what I'm seeing is actually real, or some fake poorly scripted Psy Op.

At current interest rates it isn't much over £100 per month but, as you say, it all adds up and is all included at the end.

[Skeleton]

Somebody pointed out on a previous thread that there's been nearlly 3 years of non payments to the account, at £300pm that's a further £9k added to the £43k plus UKAR legal costs plus all of this security and selling fees. It really has to be the most self destructive course of action I've ever witnessed, so much so that I'm left questioning whether what I'm seeing is actually real, or some fake poorly scripted Psy Op.

As somebody said on here if you had run this storyline on Coronation Street, viewers would be changing channels citing that would never happen in real life.

[littleFred]

If anyone is found guilty in this criminal trial, it will be a formality to sue them for the damage done to the house in a civil court or it will be an obvious insurance claim.

Hmmmmm, as Peter would say. I wouldn't be surprised if small print in the mortgage allows UKAR to sue on Tom's behalf, a bit like motor insurance.

[ArthurWankspittle]

If anyone is found guilty in this criminal trial, it will be a formality to sue them for the damage done to the house in a civil court or it will be an obvious insurance claim.

Hmmmmm, as Peter would say. I wouldn't be surprised if small print in the mortgage allows UKAR to sue on Tom's behalf, a bit like motor insurance.

UKAR will have their own policy probably limited to the amount of the mortgage. Whether they could make a successful claim on it is another matter.

[Forsyth]

It's case by case. Sometimes it's written off if there's little chance of collection, other times it's pursued vigorously.

My feeling is that they'll write it off, but I'm not as certain as I'd like to be. When it comes to writing off debts there are usually two aspects to the decision: the financial impact to the business (which includes the cost of bad publicity as well as the cost of recovery), and the human (staffing) element which is usually not an official consideration, but which can cause a purely business decision to be shifted one way or another.

In this case the financial impact is simpler than normal - UKAR do not take new business so there is little risk to public relations from an aggressive pursuit of debt. There is, of course, still the question of whether they will recover more money than they expend. It is very difficult, however, to get a feel for whether there is an appetite for more recovery from the staff at UKAR - they may be fed up with this case by now and be happy to move on with the victory they have. They may also be intending to plough salt into the fields as a message to others. I suspect the former, but the latter is a definite possibility.

One aspect of the case which I don't feel has generated enough attention is in the last judgement, in respect of whether the appeal should even be considered as the time limit had passed:

20. However on behalf of Bradford & Bingley Miss Sandells asks me to grant permission out of time. It is not the ground upon which she seeks to fight this battle.

This is very interesting. Bradford & Bingley actually asked the judge to ignore one of their most powerful arguments - that the appeal was out of time - to allow the other claims being made against them to be examined (with the expectation that they would be dismissed). I'm not sure that we can use this to draw any conclusions as to their likely attitude following the sale of the house, but I think it does indicate that the message and not the money is the important factor.

[ArthurWankspittle]

You are overlooking two things. One B&B were bailed out by the taxpayer. It doesn't need a genius to come up with the story: Mortgage fraudster stiffs taxpayer which B&B UKAR would like to avoid. Two, more importantly, there is Sue's inheritance (OK lots of assumptions here). Let's say the Crawfords end up £40k in debt to B&B. Without Sue's inheritance we are looking at two near pensioners of NFA. Assets near zero, income near poverty levels. Chances of getting £40k out of them? You'd get about £10 a week at best. With Sue's inheritance we are looking at an unencumbered property probably worth £100k+. Chances of getting £40k out of them, even after additional expenses? Very good.

[Normal Wisdom]

.... One aspect of the case which I don't feel has generated enough attention is in the last judgement, in respect of whether the appeal should even be considered as the time limit had passed:

20. However on behalf of Bradford & Bingley Miss Sandells asks me to grant permission out of time. It is not the ground upon which she seeks to fight this battle.

This is very interesting. Bradford & Bingley actually asked the judge to ignore one of their most powerful arguments - that the appeal was out of time - to allow the other claims being made against them to be examined (with the expectation that they would be dismissed). I'm not sure that we can use this to draw any conclusions as to their likely attitude following the sale of the house, but I think it does indicate that the message and not the money is the important factor.

If I recall correctly our friend TM169 clarified that this was because refusal for permission to appeal out of time can be appealed. Refusal of permission to appeal based on the merits of the argument cannot.

[NG3]

You are overlooking two things. One B&B were bailed out by the taxpayer. It doesn't need a genius to come up with the story: Mortgage fraudster stiffs taxpayer which B&B UKAR would like to avoid.

Yes, they picked the wrong bank from that perspective.

Chances of getting £40k out of them, even after additional expenses? Very good.

& with the Crawford stock having nosedived it's not going to play out like last time, no big crowds, no mass disruption, so I doubt "additional expenses" will be as high this time.