Sorry old ground again, posted as more evidence of how little faith can be placed on the claims made by Tom. Camp Crawford (reference to the people assisting him and not his sexuality) have repeatedly said that there has never been a possession order.
In a video posted by Bertie Bert, Guy helpfully showed this during an interview on the UK Column.
As we know from the Judgement:
6. The initial hearing was before Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith on 19th September 2012. Bradford & Bingley were represented by a solicitor. Mr Crawford attended and was represented by a solicitor (I think the duty solicitor). The Deputy District Judge’s notes show that the court was made aware that Mr Crawford had recently not been able to work because of injury and would be unable to return to work until January 2013. There is also a note to the effect that the mortgage was changed 10 years after it was taken out and that a complaint had been made to the Ombudsman two months before.
7.
The Deputy District Judge made the following order:-
1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton,
Gedling, Nottinghamshire, NG4 1DN on or before 17 October 2012.
2. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85 being the amount outstanding
under the mortgage which is not to be enforced so long as the possession
order remains suspended.
3.
This order is not to be enforced so long as the defendant pays the current
instalments under the mortgage the first instalment being paid on or
before 30th September 2012.
4. This matter shall be listed for review in six months on a date to be fixed by
the court.
5. Leave to appeal refused.
8.
Clearly the Deputy District Judge found that there were arrears which entitled the Bradford & Bingley to possession but then went on to make the most generous suspended possession order by requiring only current monthly instalments to be maintained without any additional element towards arrears. It is not clear which side applied for permission to appeal.
As Tom filed a defence on 14 September 2012 - he knew about this hearing and of course the outcome being a suspended possession order.
13.
During the second half of 2014 attempts to enforce the possession warrant were thwarted when a large number of protesters arrived on the dates set for execution of the warrants. This was covered in the local and national press.
14.
In the face of a further warrant, Mr Crawford made an application to stay execution of that warrant which came before me as a matter of urgency on 2nd February 2015. Bradford & Bingley also attended by counsel. Mr Crawford wanted the warrant suspended on a number of grounds.
He wanted to challenge the validity of the original possession order, the validity of the mortgage and the basis for enforcement of its terms (which were themselves disputed). From the outset I was puzzled as to how the mortgage term had reached expiry with the Crawfords owing more than they had originally borrowed. Exploration of that with both sides on 2nd February 2015 revealed that Bradford & Bingley believed that the original endowment policy taken out with the mortgage loan was no longer in existence and had certainly not matured so as to pay off the capital element of the original loan. Mr Crawford said that as far as he was concerned he had made all payments required of him. He believed that the monthly payments they were making to Bradford & Bingley included the endowment premium. He also complained that Bradford & Bingley had changed the terms of his mortgage without his consent.
If as claimed by Camp Crawford there had never been a warrant issues or a possession order granted - why did Tom make an application to stay a warrant and why did he challenge the validity of the order. If neither existed, he could not do either.
