The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[Hyrion]

We won the case hands down today

Judge says application unclear, present owner not notified, no application to transfer title.

I think I see what Toms next claim is going to be.

On the basis of misinterpreting (or selective hearing or both) what the Judge says, Tom will claim:

The Judge said the possession application was unclear and the present owner was not notified and B&B did not have an application to transfer title = FRAUD!!!!

While the reality is that the Judge likely said what he did in the context that Tom's application was unclear and he did not notify the present owner of 5 Fearn Chase as that individual(s) will have a vested interest in the situation.

Gotta say: the OPCA crowd is pretty predictable if nothing else.

[NG3]

A barrister representing the Land Registry? Kin'ell how much did he cost/will he cost?

And for no real apparent reason.

You really couldn't make this up

And again he had things spelled out for him, he was told not only was it the wrong court, but that his case could not even win in the right one.

[longdog]

A barrister representing the Land Registry? Kin'ell how much did he cost/will he cost?

And for no real apparent reason.

Perhaps he added the Land Registry as a respondent thus clocking up more costs he will be liable for.

[NG3]

Perhaps he added the Land Registry as a respondent thus clocking up more costs he will be liable for.

Yes, he was there because of Tom, I meant that once there he appeared to have no purpose. It was money for nothing.

[YiamCross]

Ker-ching. Add another £5-12,000 to the Crawford's legal bill. Maybe even more, depending on how much they had to prep before the case.

[hardcopy]

Ker-ching. Add another £5-12,000 to the Crawford's legal bill. Maybe even more, depending on how much they had to prep before the case.

I'm a bit confused here. Did Tom have a barrister "for the Land Register" ?
What does that even mean, can anyone explain?...in simple terms, please.

[NG3]

Ker-ching. Add another £5-12,000 to the Crawford's legal bill. Maybe even more, depending on how much they had to prep before the case.

I'm a bit confused here. Did Tom have a barrister "for the Land Register" ?
What does that even mean, can anyone explain?...in simple terms, please.

A barrister representing the land registry was there at Tom's request

[ArthurWankspittle]

A barrister representing the land registry was there at Tom's request

I think it is more like a barrister (and a solicitor) from the Land Registry turned up because of something Tom said or did and they got notice of it. Alternatively, UKAR warned them that Tom might be trying something (stupid) so maybe they'd want to turn up.

[Pox]

Ker-ching. Add another £5-12,000 to the Crawford's legal bill. Maybe even more, depending on how much they had to prep before the case.

I think we may be overestimating the cost of a barrister in court for a day.
They are a tad short of work (After legal aid cutbacks) so I am sure that one could be hired for £3k a day, even in London.
They don't usually charge for prep - it's part of the job, so to speak unless in really complex cases, which this was not.
The Land Registry one was probably employed and salaried, so cheaper, me thinks.

[Jeffrey]

Bradley has just updated his latest audio discussing Tom Crawford & Mark Gillards court cases yesterday

https://soundcloud.com/bradleyknight1/t ... m=facebook

Just listened to it and basically Tom was just going over old ground and speaking nonsense as per normal

HAH! Tom actually told the judge to order the cops to evict the people who purchased the home.

[bagman]

A barrister representing the land registry was there at Tom's request

I think it is more like a barrister (and a solicitor) from the Land Registry turned up because of something Tom said or did and they got notice of it. Alternatively, UKAR warned them that Tom might be trying something (stupid) so maybe they'd want to turn up.

at the last hearing TOM requested the barrister representing the land registry, at next hearing,,,i have zero idea why

[ArthurWankspittle]

I'm beginning to wonder if Tom is stupid enough to interpret the judge's comments as meaning he needs to go round to 3 Fearn Chase to serve the occupants notice.

[YiamCross]

Ker-ching. Add another £5-12,000 to the Crawford's legal bill. Maybe even more, depending on how much they had to prep before the case.

I think we may be overestimating the cost of a barrister in court for a day.
They are a tad short of work (After legal aid cutbacks) so I am sure that one could be hired for £3k a day, even in London.
They don't usually charge for prep - it's part of the job, so to speak unless in really complex cases, which this was not.
The Land Registry one was probably employed and salaried, so cheaper, me thinks.

Barrister for B&B, barrister for the Land Registry, solicitors and clerical support for all, travel costs etc, well over £6K at the most generous rates. Plus they don't have to present a breakdown of costs to the judge for assessment as they can add the costs under the mortgage agreement and no third party to moderate them for reasonableness. Ker-ching!

The Land Registry, which for our non-UK friends is where all property ownership details, charges against property etc are recorded, was involved at Tom Crawford's behest. I think it's to do with their part in the great fraud by allowing his property to be transferred into other hands without his signature. Apparently he named them when he presented his application last week but by the time he got to court this week he'd forgotten and was asking why they were there. You couldn't make it up.

If the Crawfords have any assett to their name worth a few bob they will have it taken and sold and they will, without any doubt at all, go to their graves owing a substantial amount of money Sue's Mum's House or not.

[wanglepin]

HAH! Tom actually told the judge to order the cops to evict the people who purchased the home.

If that is true, Crawford has most definitely lost the plot. I can see him in the rubber room before long.

[NG3]

If the Crawfords have any assett to their name worth a few bob they will have it taken and sold and they will, without any doubt at all, go to their graves owing a substantial amount of money Sue's Mum's House or not.

Do you think he will cooperate with a bankruptcy?

Do you think he will declare all assets?

Do you think he won't try and sign assets into others names?

He could not only end up with nothing, he could end up playing with fire and getting himself burnt.

If he tries to play woo with Sue's Mum's House he could spend several years in jail

[YiamCross]

...

Do you think he will cooperate with a bankruptcy?

Do you think he will declare all assets?

...

It's a very dangerous game to play, hide the asset from the receiver. I know a couple of people who have been through bankruptcy and the process is thorough and harrowing. In this day and age it's very difficult to hide an asset unless he has wads of cash buried in the garden at Fern Chase... Now wouldn't that be a tragedy?

Not only would they have to hide assetts from the receiver while they carry out an assessment of assetts, earnings and anything else of value, which won't take too long with the Crawfords I suspect as most of it is in bin bags in a lock up somewhere, but they'd have to keep them hidden for the 5 years it takes for the bankruptcy to be discharged. It's not easy and if they get found out the consequences are very serious indeed. Prison would be almost certain I believe.

Then again a roof over his head and 3 square meals a day might be an attractive proposition to Tom in the coming months and years.

http://www.credittoday.co.uk/article/14 ... ing-assets

[fat frank]

even if he transfers stuff in to the kids names, the OR can take them back and say he did it to stop it getting taken

he could always put it in a trust, as the freemans keep claiming they cant be touched

[Hercule Parrot]

I've heard that B&B are still calculating how much Tom owes before landing him with a very hefty bill in the very near future

I hope they announce the final bill by means of a youtube video, maybe even a downfall spoof. It's only good manners to communicate with the Crawfrauds in their preferred medium.

[Hercule Parrot]

A barrister representing the land registry was there at Tom's request

I think it is more like a barrister (and a solicitor) from the Land Registry turned up because of something Tom said or did and they got notice of it. Alternatively, UKAR warned them that Tom might be trying something (stupid) so maybe they'd want to turn up.

at the last hearing TOM requested the barrister representing the land registry, at next hearing

The fact that he asked for it does not place any duty on the LR to provide it. They presumably did so to represent their own interests (the integrity of the LR system) rather than to assist TC with his cockamayne 'legal' claim.

[Skeleton]

I'm beginning to wonder if Tom is stupid enough to interpret the judge's comments as meaning he needs to go round to 3 Fearn Chase to serve the occupants notice.

Given that Tom announced on EFOTB that he had "hands down won the case" anything is possible. Tom won't do it but a couple of posts on EFOTB from him and another tirade from Amanda may trigger one of the loony's to do it for him. I am actually surprised it has not happened already.