The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[JonnyL]

They won't write any shortfall off, they'll simply bankrupt Tom and Sue, they'll be the priority creditor, it might be that they'll end up getting zero out of it, but this is how UKAR will bring closure to the situation.

[FatGambit]

Depends, even the Government don't seem too bother about recooping our investments in various banks presently, preferring to sell the shares off at a fraction of their buy price.

[AndyPandy]

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.[/quote]

Shows you Walker Morris knew exactly what they were doing in not contesting the 'out of time' appeal. Walker Morris vs Crawford / Ebert / Haining / Taylor hmmmmmmmm obviously, those 4 legal brains together are more than a match for Walker Morris

[Jeffrey]

Alternatively. They got some pretty bad press when the narrative was "big bad bank defrauds and evicts cancer patient".

Maybe allowing the appeal was intentional in order to make the details of the case public.

[Forsyth]

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.

If I understand it correctly B&B could still have opposed that application, and if they lost they would still have been able to defend the appeal on its merits. I'm not familiar with the process to know if this is normal or not - presumably reducing the number of potential hearings keeps the costs down - but it does seem to present fewer chances for success.

But I'm speculating on matters I don't really understand, so I should probably either shut up or do some proper research, and I think it's going to be the former rather than the latter!

[rumpelstilzchen]

I agree with you Forsyth. (Welcome to Quatloos btw) It was important that there could not be the claim that B&B were only successful because of a technicality.

[bagman]

I know the Crawfords and there "legal team" are a law unto themselves, and judge Goldmark has denied a revise and review as it has no merit, but can anyone see what possible action they could take now, that would not result in costing the Crawfords even more moneys being added to the final total. I know you should never underestimate the stupidity of people involved with the Crawfords, i have in the past only to be shocked by there stupidity. So my question is simple can anyone worth a rational mind see any course of action that the Crawfords could take that would one, have success and 2 not cost them even more moneys.

[fat frank]

I know the Crawfords and there "legal team" are a law unto themselves, and judge Goldmark has denied a revise and review as it has no merit, but can anyone see what possible action they could take now, that would not result in costing the Crawfords even more moneys being added to the final total. I know you should never underestimate the stupidity of people involved with the Crawfords, i have in the past only to be shocked by there stupidity. So my question is simple can anyone worth a rational mind see any course of action that the Crawfords could take that would one, have success and 2 not cost them even more moneys.

Revise and review exist only in eberts mind, tom lost and since he refused to pay BB a penny more they took the house, as tom stopped paying the interest they got in to arrears therefore allowed to repo, had tom carried on paying the interest, there wasn't much bb could of done really

[PeanutGallery]

I know the Crawfords and there "legal team" are a law unto themselves, and judge Goldmark has denied a revise and review as it has no merit, but can anyone see what possible action they could take now, that would not result in costing the Crawfords even more moneys being added to the final total. I know you should never underestimate the stupidity of people involved with the Crawfords, i have in the past only to be shocked by there stupidity. So my question is simple can anyone worth a rational mind see any course of action that the Crawfords could take that would one, have success and 2 not cost them even more moneys.

At this moment, their absolute best plan on getting out of this in a manner in which they could start over, would be either to try and get themselves onto an IVA when the bank comes after the additional money, or simply accept bankruptcy, deal with the official receiver, suck it up and write it all off as a huge learning curve. The amount that has already been spent by UKAR on security is something they will have to suck up as are the eventual legal costs and the costs associated with the eviction. They can't avoid these and UKAR, if it knows or thinks the Crawfords have assets will pursue them.

Or leave their clothes and a note on a beach, fake a suicide, and try to restart a la Reggie Perrin.

They could try to negotiate with the bank, but in my experience of these sort of negotiations, the bank will be in a position of strength. They have the law on their side and they are in the right. The Crawfords are in a position where barring an absolute miracle (such as a lottery win) any assets they have will shortly belong to the bank.

They will have to accept that they are going to have to start what is left of their lives again. They won't do this, but the good thing is the courts will soon take action to stop it and this will at least help stop the Crawfords from digging deeper into financial trouble.

[fat frank]

I honestly hope, they declare tom and sue bankrupt, they lose sues mums house, and end up living in the spare room of amandas, I hope the c tax next year goes up by the police part to pay for this repo, lets call it the Crawford charge

think its time the tax man, looks at toms finances, claims he is retired, but is still advertising carpet work and making money from the talks he gives, and also look how many business and web sites are registered at 3 fern dump

and then watch the fall out, tom will be more of a broken man then he is now

(am in a evil mood today)

[littleFred]

So my question is simple can anyone worth a rational mind see any course of action that the Crawfords could take that would one, have success and 2 not cost them even more moneys.

What do you mean by "success"? Get the house back without paying a truck-full of cash? No, the house is gone. Depending on what he owes and what assets he has, his best "success" now is to avoid bankruptcy and avoid losing whatever assets he does have.

If "success" means a low-paying gig on the speaker circuit, plus non-legal advice to folk facing possessions, then yes, I fear that's his best financial option.

[NG3]

Or leave their clothes and a note on a beach, fake a suicide, and try to restart a la Reggie Perrin.

I think he's more likely to go down the C.J. route

https://youtu.be/drlPbIWAz-E?t=1m41s

We wouldn't last a week if we told the truth

I didn't get where I am today by telling the truth.

[Pox]

So my question is simple can anyone worth a rational mind see any course of action that the Crawfords could take that would one, have success and 2 not cost them even more moneys.

I don't have any particular knowledge of these matters but to me it looks like game over and it was as soon as the property was repossessed.
Post eviction is almost impossible to overcome me thinks.
Won't stop them though, they will still have a go at all the ruses Ebert tried.
It will cost them though and will not succeed so won't meet either of the terms that you asked for above.
I also feel that it will cost Tom his health (and maybe Sue) - any post eviction footage that I have seen or heard have given me the impression that he is less of a man than he was before.
Not saying that I feel sorry for him but I wouldn't wish ill health on him.
It goes without saying that if he does suffer some health problems or a relapse, it will be the fault of UKAR, B & B, Nottingham Post,trolls, shills, the corrupt courts ........

[hobgoblin]

At this moment, their absolute best plan on getting out of this in a manner in which they could start over, would be either to try and get themselves onto an IVA when the bank comes after the additional money, or simply accept bankruptcy, deal with the official receiver, suck it up and write it all off as a huge learning curve. The amount that has already been spent by UKAR on security is something they will have to suck up as are the eventual legal costs and the costs associated with the eviction. They can't avoid these and UKAR, if it knows or thinks the Crawfords have assets will pursue them.

I don't think they would get an IVA, as the creditors holding at least 75% of the debt have to vote in favour.
I can't see UKAR agreeing to it as it will mean settling for a percentage of what they are owed.

I had an iVA a few years ago and it is a good solution for normal, sane people who are honest and co-operate with their creditors, unlike this lot.

[bagman]

I know the Crawfords and there "legal team" are a law unto themselves, and judge Goldmark has denied a revise and review as it has no merit, but can anyone see what possible action they could take now, that would not result in costing the Crawfords even more moneys being added to the final total. I know you should never underestimate the stupidity of people involved with the Crawfords, i have in the past only to be shocked by there stupidity. So my question is simple can anyone worth a rational mind see any course of action that the Crawfords could take that would one, have success and 2 not cost them even more moneys.

They will have to accept that they are going to have to start what is left of their lives again. They won't do this, but the good thing is the courts will soon take action to stop it and this will at least help stop the Crawfords from digging deeper into financial trouble.

THE LAST PART,"help stop the Crawfords from digging deeper into financial trouble" i/we all know this is a situation of there own making but once you/we get over the "we/i told you so" then I (my personal view)would not want to see them penny-less, granted, its of there own doing, but for me, this is about stopping others from following this path,not wanting to see him living in a cardboard box....I really really do ,hope he see`s a glimpse of reality very very soon, and yet i have attempted to put these points to TOM,SUE CRAIG AND THE OTHER ONE, and got bocked,banned and abused from all...

[bagman]

So my question is simple can anyone worth a rational mind see any course of action that the Crawfords could take that would one, have success and 2 not cost them even more moneys.

What do you mean by "success"? Get the house back without paying a truck-full of cash? No, the house is gone. Depending on what he owes and what assets he has, his best "success" now is to avoid bankruptcy and avoid losing whatever assets he does have.

If "success" means a low-paying gig on the speaker circuit, plus non-legal advice to folk facing possessions, then yes, I fear that's his best financial option.

NO by sucess i only meant some form of paying the moneys they still owe (as i think they still will) after the sale is completed and all the costs are added,,,,

[ArthurWankspittle]

NO by sucess i only meant some form of paying the moneys they still owe (as i think they still will) after the sale is completed and all the costs are added,,,,

I think I understand what you are asking and the answer is no it won't happen. The only asset of any significance Tom and Sue have is her mother's house. They can't borrow money against it, they are both near pension age, probably don't have much of anything in terms of private pensions, and, the killer, their credit record shows them as missing somewhere between 30 - 500 mortgage payments. The best they could hope for would be a reversion mortgage or purchase but Sue's mum's house would need to be worth at least 5 times what they owe for that to come off. The next best deal would be to pay something on the mortgage account while trying to sell mum's house. Don't think UKAR would go for that given the Crawford's track record. It's going to be two bankruptcy petitions and sort it our yourselves from there.

[bagman]

NO by sucess i only meant some form of paying the moneys they still owe (as i think they still will) after the sale is completed and all the costs are added,,,,

I think I understand what you are asking and the answer is no it won't happen. The only asset of any significance Tom and Sue have is her mother's house. They can't borrow money against it, they are both near pension age, probably don't have much of anything in terms of private pensions, and, the killer, their credit record shows them as missing somewhere between 30 - 500 mortgage payments. The best they could hope for would be a reversion mortgage or purchase but Sue's mum's house would need to be worth at least 5 times what they owe for that to come off. The next best deal would be to pay something on the mortgage account while trying to sell mum's house. Don't think UKAR would go for that given the Crawford's track record. It's going to be two bankruptcy petitions and sort it our yourselves from there.

Thanks that what i was after, in a nutshell,

[JonnyL]

The very best Tom & Sue can hope for is if UKAR assign the shortfall debt to another company.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The very best Tom & Sue can hope for is if UKAR assign the shortfall debt to another company.

I can't see the point. Let's say the Crawfords owe UKAR £50k. Two bankruptcy petitions will cost ~ £2.5k. Hearing in say 3 months. Delays by Crawfords f******g about, 3 months. Month 7 and official receiver gets into action. Month 10 court order for possession. Possession month 14. Month 16 auction. Month 17 UKAR gets £50k for a cost of £2.5k. So for £2.5k and waiting 18 months and incurring no further costs or spending any time on the case UKAR gets its money back.
The alternative is to go to the High Court. Petition costs £5k? Hearing in 4 months? Delays by Crawfords f******g about, 4 months. So, 8 months down the line get order for £50k plus interest. Now have to get in High Court Enforcement at cost of ? Take 6 months to get possession? Auction month 16. Money plus interest paid month 17. So about 18 months for a similar result with some extra interest but with more costs.
All figures are guesses but you will understand the idea and "where I'm coming from".