The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[AndyPandy]

Some hilarious comments on here !

https://www.facebook.com/TheNottinghamPost

The Crawford supporters are few and far between and keep getting 'no, it wasn't stolen, he only paid the interest nothing off the capital'. Brilliant, Nottingham Post giving the Crawfords a taste of their own medicine, the byline being 'Could be a bargain for someone', you have to bypass the horse rider in her underwear though!!

[Bones]

It would be very likely that whatever price the property now sells for, the crawfords will have claim between that price and the amount it was previously sold for.

Lenders have a duty to sell repossessed property for the highest possible price. If everyone remembers as it is now the property was marketed to be sold via auction, which could have resulted in a higher selling price but thanks to clan crawford and friends, it was withdrawn from that auction because of the harassment of the agents. Furthermore, we have the Nottingham 6 that publicly albeit retook the property. The lender would have to weigh up holding out for a higher price with the ongoing cost of security.

I think given the circumstances the lender could very easily demonstrate that it obtained the best possible price.

[Hercule Parrot]

.
It's the "Fifteen Times Comeback Tour"... Yay!!!

[PeanutGallery]

I would concur with Bone's assessment (although I'd also publicly credit Normal Wisdom for it). One thing I think that might explain the need for major refurbishment, as we know the Kitchen was done up with a £5,000 loan early in the mortgage history, it is possible that this was the only time the Kitchen was done up and the decor might be dated, older people tend to have and keep older things. However it's also worth remembering that when the rooftop six made their bid for glory and warrant, the police used a metal pole to poke through the ceiling at them, which would have likely left several holes. If the poking dislodged a roof tile or two, or in the course of things the Rooftoppers broke a couple of tiles or damaged the roof, this would have left the house exposed to the elements for a considerable period.

As for the price, I still think it's rather (very) optimistic. The history hasn't died down and this is likely to flare it all up again.

[Bones]

As for Amanda Pike and her rant - I have never come across someone that is so deluded. Amanda, once Daddy missed two monthly payments it was game over. Daddy confirmed he stopped payment of the mortgage, hence missed more than two monthly payments.

The bank doesn't need to provide any evidence or documents as daddy crawford confirmed that this was true. All the smoke and mirrors put forward by the two idiot Michael's, Guy Taylor, Mr Ebert and of course Mark Haining are meaningless. All that matters is daddy missed two or more payments - which he admitted.

Still waiting for you to post that warrant by the way

Whilst Daddy and Guy kept reading out paragraph 91, to deceive the crawford followers, as shown in the videos they both chose not to read out

92. However none of this helps Mr Crawford in relation to possession. The entitlement to possession is triggered by arrears amounting to two monthly instalments and no-one suggests that such qualifying arrears did not exist both at the time the claim was issued and on the date of the Order.

there is also

94. It is not the totality of the debt which leads to the possession order. As set out above in paragraph 50, once there are two months arrears, Bradford & Bingley are entitled to possession. Once those two months arrears are proved the court must make a possession order. The total of the arrears is irrelevant to the making of that order.

daddy crawford confirmed to the court himself that there were qualifying arrears

99. The order under appeal is a mortgage possession order. As I have indicated in paragraph 50 above, once there are qualifying arrears (two months instalments) Bradford & Bingley is entitled to possession. There was no dispute that there were qualifying arrears.

[Jeffrey]

Pike ain't deluded, she clearly knows what she typed in that rant is bullshit.

[Bones]

[longdog]

I think people might be making too much of the heating thing. If, when the house was last sold, the heating was not working correctly, hadn't been subject to a safety test since god was a lad, or even simply that the gas was cut off and it was impossible to tell if the system worked or not, the auctioneers / estate agents / whatever may have simply found it easier to say 'no heating system' than to potentially be held liable for selling a house with a dodgy/defective system.

Not so much 'this house has no heating' as 'what the f**k do we care?'.

When I sold my 'marital home' by auction 11 years ago it was listed as '_____' under heating because while it did have central heating and a boiler the boiler was 98% knackered.

[YiamCross]

They had a log fire, I can only assume their boiler either didn't work or was removed by them.

I hesitate to mock Amanda these days because I worry that maybe she's not the full shilling. She is so unpleasant though that my hesitation is brief and so here we go.

Amanda Pike joe stuff is ALWAYS going on. my family are constantly doing stuff towards it. from the moment they wake till bed time. let this be known. we will NEVER give up. we have the proof. so we must soilder on. the problem is is that we have to tread carefully so cannot tell you all what we are doing until we're able as much as it kills us not to tell you all. we're constantly trying to figure out ways to tell you all but so far if we tell you the other side could get wind so for now we're not able. but as each stage is over with we'll always tell you. So there isn't much to tell only because we're not able right now. im sorry. to be fair I dont even know everything thats planned and currently going on haha but we appreciate your support more than you could ever ever imagine and think the world of you all xxxx
Like · Reply · 6 · 7 hrs

I am eternally puzzled how proof can be in any way diminished if it comes into the public domain. Either they have proof, which is concrete, which is kind of what proof is, or they have nothing and they need to keep on bullshitting because they just can't accept it's all over. Let me see, which of those is the most likely...

[PeanutGallery]

A lot of people seem to think that the law is a poker game, where you keep your cards a secret. They dream of going "aha" in a court room and watching the other sides lawyers develop faces like thunder. Of course doing that will just piss everybody important off (the judge) and delay matters while the other side scrutinises your proof and prepares a rebuttal.

So the law, in my limited experience, doesn't work like that, it doesn't like surprises, it likes everyone to have an idea of what evidence you have and what it means, because then you can probably predict the outcome and in doing so save everybody a lot of time and worry. The largest dispute I've ever been involved in settled out of court for quite a tidy sum (just under six figures) and that was done by telling the other side exactly what my position was and what evidence I had and how I could prove they were in the wrong.

If I'd kept anything secret I would have only done more damage to the cause I was pursuing. The hardest thing in a dispute is treating the other side politely and personally and getting it resolved, largely because of the emotional aspect. I may not have liked the other side in my dispute, but I put that to one side and worked with them to resolve matters so that we both walked away with a win.

Personally I think the law is a lot more akin to chess than cards, in chess everyone can see each others position, but a strong player will be able to manipulate a weaker one and eventually will gain control of their pieces in order to win. Of course unlike chess, in legal disputes both sides don't start with equal positions, so it's not a perfect analogy, but it feels better than poker.

Then again, I'm not a lawyer and don't think myself much of an expert...

[Skeleton]

They had a log fire, I can only assume their boiler either didn't work or was removed by them.

I hesitate to mock Amanda these days because I worry that maybe she's not the full shilling. She is so unpleasant though that my hesitation is brief and so here we go.

Amanda Pike joe stuff is ALWAYS going on. my family are constantly doing stuff towards it. from the moment they wake till bed time. let this be known. we will NEVER give up. we have the proof. so we must soilder on. the problem is is that we have to tread carefully so cannot tell you all what we are doing until we're able as much as it kills us not to tell you all. we're constantly trying to figure out ways to tell you all but so far if we tell you the other side could get wind so for now we're not able. but as each stage is over with we'll always tell you. So there isn't much to tell only because we're not able right now. im sorry. to be fair I dont even know everything thats planned and currently going on haha but we appreciate your support more than you could ever ever imagine and think the world of you all xxxx
Like · Reply · 6 · 7 hrs

I am eternally puzzled how proof can be in any way diminished if it comes into the public domain. Either they have proof, which is concrete, which is kind of what proof is, or they have nothing and they need to keep on bullshitting because they just can't accept it's all over. Let me see, which of those is the most likely...

To my knowledge her father has said nothing publicly about the house going back on the market and neither has Craig, but Amanda can't help herself and seems to think she has to say something, so we get another round of meaningless gibberish from her, I can't make head nor tail of the above from her but their again I am not fluent in "chav" language. I agree she also comes across as thoroughly unpleasant.

Isn't she also sailing close to the wind, handing out advice on wether or not to contact the agents?

[ArthurWankspittle]

The lender would have to weigh up holding out for a higher price with the ongoing cost of security.

Just this argument alone ruins any claim by Tom. Sell for £55k or pay £2000 a week security and hope to sell for £70k three months later? Only the Crawfords and friends can't do the maths.

[mufc1959]

A lot of people seem to think that the law is a poker game, where you keep your cards a secret. They dream of going "aha" in a court room and watching the other sides lawyers develop faces like thunder. Of course doing that will just piss everybody important off (the judge) and delay matters while the other side scrutinises your proof and prepares a rebuttal.

Most people get their idea of what happens in court from the TV, where the "aha" moment is common. In reality, if there hasn't been full disclosure the judge will be extremely annoyed and is likely to impose a costs penalty on the person trying to spring surprise evidence on the court - unless that evidence has only just come to light and couldn't previously have been disclosed. But even in those circumstances, you don't wait until you're in the courtroom to produce the evidence - you let the other side know immediately it comes to light and provide the evidence to them.

[NG3]

A lot of people seem to think that the law is a poker game, where you keep your cards a secret. They dream of going "aha" in a court room and watching the other sides lawyers develop faces like thunder. Of course doing that will just piss everybody important off (the judge) and delay matters while the other side scrutinises your proof and prepares a rebuttal.

Most people get their idea of what happens in court from the TV, where the "aha" moment is common. In reality, if there hasn't been full disclosure the judge will be extremely annoyed and is likely to impose a costs penalty on the person trying to spring surprise evidence on the court - unless that evidence has only just come to light and couldn't previously have been disclosed. But even in those circumstances, you don't wait until you're in the courtroom to produce the evidence - you let the other side know immediately it comes to light and provide the evidence to them.

You are both correct, suggesting Amanda is an idiot (entirely believable) however I think it also translates as they obviously have no evidence, and she's just to cowardly to admit it to the poor fools who have bought into the Crawford's repeated lies.

Let's face it, if they had this magic evidence then surely they would have presented it at the numerous previous hearings, in order to keep their house.

[Pox]

A tad off topic but the potential irony of this makes me want to share my thoughts -

Some time ago, on the previously locked board so I can't quote the post, we were of the belief that a large property company (Charles Street Commercial) had bought Fearne Chase but this post on GOOFY suggests that the property was bought by Steven Nevins with Charles Street having a charge on the property.

Charles Street Commercial appear to specialise in deposit free finance.

I wonder if Steven Nevins borrowed the whole £55k from Charles Street at a high interest rate, no doubt, and was then hoping to remortgage with a more traditional lender at a lower interest rate and with increased borrowings to carry out the improvements.

I wonder if his plans have gone awry and that he has failed to get funding and is now forced to sell quickly at auction to repay his debts and avoid eviction?

Maybe he should get the mob round to prevent this forced sale/impending repossession?

[notorial dissent]

This kind of reminds me of years and years and years ago when iI was first looking to buy a home and was looking at VA repos. It was amazing how good they sounded on paper, and it lasted right up until you actually looked at them and figured out how much your bargain was going to cost you just to get it to livable, sometimes more than what they were selling it for. It just strikes me that the asking on this place is considerably less than what it was originally appraised for, that I wonder if, 1) the appraisal wasn't way off, or 2) it was in worse shape than it first appeared? It just strikes me as odd that it is going for so little.

[PeanutGallery]

You are both correct, suggesting Amanda is an idiot (entirely believable) however I think it also translates as they obviously have no evidence, and she's just to cowardly to admit it to the poor fools who have bought into the Crawford's repeated lies.

Let's face it, if they had this magic evidence then surely they would have presented it at the numerous previous hearings, in order to keep their house.

She absolutely is an idiot, then again she probably takes after Daddy. She may well think they have evidence, but it's likely something one of Tom's guru mates has scrawled on the back of a fag (cigarette for our colonial chums and not a gay) packet. Her post also shows her paranoia, she doesn't want the other side to know what she knows, because she thinks if they do then they will do something to make the evidence not valid. It suggests that the evidence they have is either weak or imaginary or both weak and imaginary.

I have had some limited experience of law. I've self represented in rather large litigation and got a sizeable amount out of it through an out of court settlement (more than enough to be able to buy Castle Crawford without a mortgage) without any substantial training or experience in the field. I did that by telling the other side precisely what my argument was and showing them exactly what evidence I had to support it. I wanted them to know exactly what my position was and I wanted them to know that I knew enough to head off any arguments they might raise in defence of the claim. I wanted them to know I was in a strong position.

By doing that I was able to show that I knew they didn't have a strong defence to the claim. Which meant that when I offered an out of court settlement and mediation, they bit my hand off to avoid paying any more legal fees.

If I'd followed the tactics posited by Amanda then I doubt I would have gotten through the door and I certainly would have screwed up any chance I had of restitution. That is what makes these idiots dangerous, Tom may have screwed up his own life, but now he is giving advice that is going to screw up lots of other lives. Some of those will have had valid cases, just causes and by following Tom's path and using his methods will screw them over.

[fat frank]

They had a log fire, I can only assume their boiler either didn't work or was removed by them.



I am eternally puzzled how proof can be in any way diminished if it comes into the public domain. Either they have proof, which is concrete, which is kind of what proof is, or they have nothing and they need to keep on bullshitting because they just can't accept it's all over. Let me see, which of those is the most likely...

the freetards claimed that as well, that if there evidence came in to the public domain, it couldn't be used in court, when wes was arrested

[Skeleton]

A tad off topic but the potential irony of this makes me want to share my thoughts -

Some time ago, on the previously locked board so I can't quote the post, we were of the belief that a large property company (Charles Street Commercial) had bought Fearne Chase but this post on GOOFY suggests that the property was bought by Steven Nevins with Charles Street having a charge on the property.

Charles Street Commercial appear to specialise in deposit free finance.

I wonder if Steven Nevins borrowed the whole £55k from Charles Street at a high interest rate, no doubt, and was then hoping to remortgage with a more traditional lender at a lower interest rate and with increased borrowings to carry out the improvements.

I wonder if his plans have gone awry and that he has failed to get funding and is now forced to sell quickly at auction to repay his debts and avoid eviction?

Maybe he should get the mob round to prevent this forced sale/impending repossession?

The Crawford's and the EFOTB group would go into delirious meltdown if anyone were to be evicted from that property, they would immediately see it as the authorities admitting that Tom should not have been evicted and the new owners had indeed stolen his house. The wailing from them as it dawns that Tom would still not get the house back (unless he bought it) would be unbearable, but would provide I am sure much entertainment.

I need notice though, much popcorn would be needed.

[fat frank]

when I was a plumber use to go to jobs that people had bought as a repo, they always thought a lick of paint and a new bathroom/kitchen they would make £0000, never worked out,


the first house I ever went to buy, the mortgage company wouldn't give me the 80k mortgage unless I spent 20k on it before I even bought it, so walked away from it, in the end it was sold at auction cash only