The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[Jeffrey]

has radiators but no boiler.

What does this mean, for those of us who don't live in cold weather.

[Pox]

has radiators but no boiler.

What does this mean, for those of us who don't live in cold weather.

It means that the means of providing heat to the radiators is not present.

For those of us who DO live in a climate that requires some heating in our homes, there are options - open fires, wall hung gas fires , wall hung electric heaters (storage or otherwise) or a gas/oil boiler that heats hot water that is pumped to radiators that hand onto the walls (usually). I won't bore you with other heating methods.

In the case of Fearn Chase, it would appear (from the EPC) that the means of heating the property (the boiler) is no longer present, for some reason?

If the boiler was leaking/defective, normal procedure would be to drain the system and disconnect the boiler but to remove it ?????? Why?

[ArthurWankspittle]

Unless there is something we don't know, to my (surveyors) eye, 'major improvement' refers to structural problems not a bit of a roof fix and a new boiler.

There never was much of a heating system and the rooftop six will probably have compromised the state of the roof and upper floor.

Without a doubt, Tom has dug a stupid and costly hole for himself and I have no sympathy for him but if the property does sell for more than UKAR sold it for , I do believe that he would have a valid case against them for selling short (negligence maybe?).

No chance. The more changes of hands and the longer time goes by (and therefore the lesser chance of the Crawford gang of fuckwits turning up) the more the price goes up. Since it last changed hands there has been no 24/7 security for a start.

Of course, UKAR could counter with the costs they had for security etc. but I am sure that good legal representation could find a way round this.

No. Security costs will be added to Tom's bill, there is nothing he can change about that until he gets to the point of negotiating a cash discount on the final bill after he's sold SMH. If he doesn't take that route, and, being Tom he won't, he just sees the full price in the official receiver's bankruptcy statement.

[FatGambit]

If the boiler was leaking/defective, normal procedure would be to drain the system and disconnect the boiler but to remove it ?????? Why?

I don't know if it's true, but when our landlord replaced our back boiler I talked to the engineer and he said the boilers themselves were the most expensive part of the installation, so call me a mad, but the boiler would fetch a fair few pennies for Tom on eBay, whereas the radiators wouldn't.

[Hyrion]

if the property does sell for more than UKAR sold it for , I do believe that he would have a valid case against them for selling short (negligence maybe?).

And all UKAR would have to do to defeat such a claim is produce the evidence that Tom and company were harassing the company handling the previous Auction including any attempt by the group to derail the actual auction as it occurred.

It'll be hard for Tom to prove negligence on UKAR when the down-driven price is directly linked to his own direct actions.

[hucknallred]

I'm in the market for a buy to let myself, think I'll pass on this one.

I don't have time to go & and view it, but don't think it would cost a deal to do it up to a reasonable spec.

I'm sure there's someone local who could go & have a gander...

Like another poster said, Graham Penny is a regular on HUTH & is also seems no fool, they won't be too concerned about the baying mob that will no doubt be bombarding them with calls & possibly visits tomorrow.

[Pox]

Unless there is something we don't know, to my (surveyors) eye, 'major improvement' refers to structural problems not a bit of a roof fix and a new boiler.

There never was much of a heating system and the rooftop six will probably have compromised the state of the roof and upper floor.

Without a doubt, Tom has dug a stupid and costly hole for himself and I have no sympathy for him but if the property does sell for more than UKAR sold it for , I do believe that he would have a valid case against them for selling short (negligence maybe?).

No chance. The more changes of hands and the longer time goes by (and therefore the lesser chance of the Crawford gang of fuckwits turning up) the more the price goes up. Since it last changed hands there has been no 24/7 security for a start.

Of course, UKAR could counter with the costs they had for security etc. but I am sure that good legal representation could find a way round this.

No. Security costs will be added to Tom's bill, there is nothing he can change about that until he gets to the point of negotiating a cash discount on the final bill after he's sold SMH. If he doesn't take that route, and, being Tom he won't, he just sees the full price in the official receiver's bankruptcy statement.

As I have said, IMO installing a boiler and repairing a hole in the roof and even replacing a plasterboard ceiling doesn't constitute 'major refurbishment'. In surveyors terms 'major refurbishment' constitutes something quite serious and costly, not £6k's worth of repair.

Regarding the security costs - I am not saying for one minute that this is justified but I can see an argument that Tom may not be liable for these. Granted, he was complicit (and more) in sending out an appeal for crowd/mob assistance but in front of the 'right' judge and with a good lawyer, I don't think it is impossible or, as you say, 'no chance', that he will get away with it.
He could act all innocent and say that he never expected the response that he got, he always appealed for peaceful resistance etc. and cannot be held responsible for the actions of others blah, blah ....
Never say never. I think we have all heard of cases where the judgement has left us stunned.
He is too obstinate to instruct a good lawyer though, as we have seen.

[Pox]

If the boiler was leaking/defective, normal procedure would be to drain the system and disconnect the boiler but to remove it ?????? Why?

I don't know if it's true, but when our landlord replaced our back boiler I talked to the engineer and he said the boilers themselves were the most expensive part of the installation, so call me a mad, but the boiler would fetch a fair few pennies for Tom on eBay, whereas the radiators wouldn't.

It is true that the boiler is the most expensive part.

My question is, if the eviction was unexpected, why did Tom remove the boiler beforehand? He would have deprived himself of a means of heat (OK, maybe not required in the summer months) but also a means of hot water?

If he wanted to sell a few things on EBAY just to make a few pennies, why not rip out the kitchen and bathroom fittings also?

Also, radiators and any pipe work have a scrap value and scrap prices are quite high, so if you are going to get rid of the boiler, why not go the whole hog and sell the rads and pipework also - I have no idea what has gone on but it doesn't make sense ( but neither has much in this scenario!)

[NG3]

If the boiler was leaking/defective, normal procedure would be to drain the system and disconnect the boiler but to remove it ?????? Why?

It may, or may not, be relevant but our city has always had a thriving illicit scrap industry, and boilers in empty properties are particular favourites around here. Most boarded up properties in the city tend not only to have "Private - Keep out" signs on them but also "All copper pipe work and the boiler have been removed from these premises" notices too, to ward off nocturnal intruders.

On that basis it may have been removed as a security measure, although knowing the whacky world of the Crawford crazies an altogether more bizarre explanation is equally likely.

[hucknallred]

If the boiler was leaking/defective, normal procedure would be to drain the system and disconnect the boiler but to remove it ?????? Why?

They may have ripped it out years ago, we know they had money problems & a replacement wouldn't be cheap.
The house is basically 3 rooms & a kitchen. Gas fire in the lounge & a couple of 2Kw heaters from Argos at less than £20 each for the bedrooms, immersion heater in the cylinder for hot water, job done.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Regarding the security costs - I am not saying for one minute that this is justified but I can see an argument that Tom may not be liable for these. Granted, he was complicit (and more) in sending out an appeal for crowd/mob assistance but in front of the 'right' judge and with a good lawyer, I don't think it is impossible or, as you say, 'no chance', that he will get away with it.
He could act all innocent and say that he never expected the response that he got, he always appealed for peaceful resistance etc. and cannot be held responsible for the actions of others blah, blah ....
Never say never. I think we have all heard of cases where the judgement has left us stunned.
He is too obstinate to instruct a good lawyer though, as we have seen.

First, Tom has to bring a complaint after the event. There isn't a court case where the costs will be decided until UKAR/B&B send Tom a bill and he then has to complain. So, he has to write a complaint with no fatal errors in it. Having got it past the stage of no fatal errors, if that is possible, and maybe having to explain away the outcome of his and his son's criminal court cases, Tom then has to convince a court of his case. Having done all that, he, at best, can claim £15k (£70-£55k). Let's say the judge is feeling generous and awards him £10k. Er, wow, so what? Knowing this was likely to happen everyone on the UKAR/B&B side has added everything they can think of and a dog to the bills they show in court. Round up all the bills and costs from what has been said on here: Mortgage £45k Legal costs £25k Security £35k Late payments, missed interest £10k. Surveyors and Estate agents fees and selling costs £10k. So Tom has to find £55k - £115k instead of £55k - £125k. And it will have cost him several hundred in court filing fees too. Pyrrhus did better. And I'm not taking into account that UKAR/B&B may have filed for his and Sue's bankruptcy.

[Pox]

If the boiler was leaking/defective, normal procedure would be to drain the system and disconnect the boiler but to remove it ?????? Why?

They may have ripped it out years ago, we know they had money problems & a replacement wouldn't be cheap.
The house is basically 3 rooms & a kitchen. Gas fire in the lounge & a couple of 2Kw heaters from Argos at less than £20 each for the bedrooms, immersion heater in the cylinder for hot water, job done.

That is possible but no gas fire mentioned on the EPC.

Stupidly (and he clearly is) , he didn't have his cavity walls or loft insulated and it would have been free in his circumstances up until fairly recently.

The property does appear to have a hot water cylinder from the EPC so hot water by an immersion heater is probably what they did.

Because of the wording on the EPC it would appear that a boiler was installed at some point (there wouldn't be a recommendation to install a condensing boiler otherwise) so he was being doubly stupid as he was probably entitled to a free replacement boiler or other financial assistance.

It is against the 'rules' for me to attach the EPC but it is easily located on the web.
Maybe all those dogs provided all the heat that they needed?

[Pox]

Regarding the security costs - I am not saying for one minute that this is justified but I can see an argument that Tom may not be liable for these. Granted, he was complicit (and more) in sending out an appeal for crowd/mob assistance but in front of the 'right' judge and with a good lawyer, I don't think it is impossible or, as you say, 'no chance', that he will get away with it.
He could act all innocent and say that he never expected the response that he got, he always appealed for peaceful resistance etc. and cannot be held responsible for the actions of others blah, blah ....
Never say never. I think we have all heard of cases where the judgement has left us stunned.
He is too obstinate to instruct a good lawyer though, as we have seen.

First, Tom has to bring a complaint after the event. There isn't a court case where the costs will be decided until UKAR/B&B send Tom a bill and he then has to complain. So, he has to write a complaint with no fatal errors in it. Having got it past the stage of no fatal errors, if that is possible, and maybe having to explain away the outcome of his and his son's criminal court cases, Tom then has to convince a court of his case. Having done all that, he, at best, can claim £15k (£70-£55k). Let's say the judge is feeling generous and awards him £10k. Er, wow, so what? Knowing this was likely to happen everyone on the UKAR/B&B side has added everything they can think of and a dog to the bills they show in court. Round up all the bills and costs from what has been said on here: Mortgage £45k Legal costs £25k Security £35k Late payments, missed interest £10k. Surveyors and Estate agents fees and selling costs £10k. So Tom has to find £55k - £115k instead of £55k - £125k. And it will have cost him several hundred in court filing fees too. Pyrrhus did better. And I'm not taking into account that UKAR/B&B may have filed for his and Sue's bankruptcy.

Point taken, who knows what may happen.

[letissier14]

Amanda has gone into Meltdown

[Pox]

Crikey - that was a rant and a half.

What on earth will happen when the latest transcript is published?

[YiamCross]

There are still some dodgy parts, but you would be amazed how much Detroit has turned around.

My son was in Detroit recently. The Chinese are buying houses up by the hundred. Literally, sight unseen. He loved it, it has its bad parts but it has plenty of good parts with more and more being added each and every day.

[AndyPandy]

God she's boring !

[YiamCross]

assuming a sale price of £70k.

I suspect the £70k guide is a come and get me guide, intended to attract bidders to push for a much higher price.

That may well be the case and I will have to check this out with an auctioneer acquaintance but my understanding is that with property auctions, agents are under an obligation to cite a 'realistic' guide price

Similarly, the sales details appear to be more than realistic, describing the property as needing major improvement..

Of course, UKAR could counter with the costs they had for security etc. but I am sure that good legal representation could find a way round this.

In my experience auction houses are usually pretty accurate in their guide prices, it does them no good not to be.

Major improvement to me does not imply any major structural defect but it sure as hell suggests a close examination is in order before bidding.

The Crawfords might have a case if the property which sold for 55k a month or two back sells now in the same condition for 70k or more. I for one was very pissed off at not having a chance to bid for it and I know of at least one other Quatlooser who might feel the same way. Lucky for B&B the Crawfords have a civil restraint order barring them from the courts though I expect B&B could make a good case for the price they sold it for. Especially considering the efforts made by Crawford's supporters to obstruct the sale and how the price finally achieved goes nowhere near covering what the Crawfords must still owe.

I may go for a viewing just to see if the rumours about rhe filth the Crawfords lived in are true but I'm suspicious about why this is coming back to market so soon. I suspect too many problems with mysterious acts of vanalism have made it too risky to spend money on. Add to that the history of the property, which will need to be declared in any search before it can be sold and I'm guessing this house will be worth a whole lot less than it should for years to come. As will many of the surrounding properties.

A bit of a poisoned chalice I think.

[mufc1959]

Re the boiler: I think it's possible that UKAR might have removed the boiler to make it more difficult for anyone to squat in the property. They already knew the bungalow would only achieve rock bottom price, so removing the boiler wouldn't have that much of an effect on the price. Unless it was a nice newish combi-Vaillant, for example, it probably wouldn't be worth much, and anyone buying the bungalow would want to gut and refit the place anyway.

[Joinder]

Re the boiler: I think it's possible that UKAR might have removed the boiler to make it more difficult for anyone to squat in the property. They already knew the bungalow would only achieve rock bottom price, so removing the boiler wouldn't have that much of an effect on the price. Unless it was a nice newish combi-Vaillant, for example, it probably wouldn't be worth much, and anyone buying the bungalow would want to gut and refit the place anyway.

You sure they're not talking about the broiler (Betty) that was removed ??