The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[YiamCross]

A lot of people seem to think that the law is a poker game, where you keep your cards a secret. ..

So the law, in my limited experience, doesn't work like that, it doesn't like surprises, ....

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

Yep, that's exactly how it works and keeping secrets can only end badly. Failing to disclose within the allotted time can easily cost the case. Refusing to disclose discloses the fact that they have nothing to disclose.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Yep, that's exactly how it works and keeping secrets can only end badly. Failing to disclose within the allotted time can easily cost the case. Refusing to disclose discloses the fact that they have nothing to disclose.

It just shows that the Crawfords and their followers don't know how things work in court. I can't imagine a judge allowing one side to suddenly bring up something "secret" that they think will win the case on the spot, and I can't imagine any solicitor not asking for a delay in order to consider and respond to the new "secret" information. Even if it were to happen, it would likely be reason to appeal.

[#six]

Yep, that's exactly how it works and keeping secrets can only end badly. Failing to disclose within the allotted time can easily cost the case. Refusing to disclose discloses the fact that they have nothing to disclose.

It just shows that the Crawfords and their followers don't know how things work in court. I can't imagine a judge allowing one side to suddenly bring up something "secret" that they think will win the case on the spot, and I can't imagine any solicitor not asking for a delay in order to consider and respond to the new "secret" information. Even if it were to happen, it would likely be reason to appeal.

I believe this to be the correct legislation but I may be wrong. Maybe someone who knows their way around these sorts cases maybe better placed to say.

Consequence of failure to disclose documents or permit inspection
31.21 A party may not rely on any document which he fails to disclose or in respect of which he fails to permit inspection unless the court gives permission.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... les/part31

[mufc1959]

I believe this to be the correct legislation but I may be wrong. Maybe someone who knows their way around these sorts cases maybe better placed to say.

Consequence of failure to disclose documents or permit inspection
31.21 A party may not rely on any document which he fails to disclose or in respect of which he fails to permit inspection unless the court gives permission.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... les/part31

Yes, that's right.

[FatGambit]

That's for fast track claims (over £10k), for small claims track (below £10k) part 18 can be used to achieve the same thing over disclosure.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... /pd_part18

There is also another section in the pre-action protocol which covers disclosur and failure to comply can result in dismissal, reduction in costs or loss of statatury interest. I think it's either part 4 or part 7, but they've recently updated the CPR so it might have been moved to another section.

[JonnyL]

Is this one of Tom's supporters? Name sounds familiar. https://www.facebook.com/10001039329093 ... 1/?fref=nf

[FatGambit]

I wouldn't say supporter, I don't think I've seen her at any of the protests, but her story has been well documented on ukcolumn and often her name get's dragged into stuff by others, short story, she is another alleged Nottingham child abuse victim like Mickey Summers.

[NG3]

Is this one of Tom's supporters? Name sounds familiar. https://www.facebook.com/10001039329093 ... 1/?fref=nf

Nottingham care home survivor.

I don't know if she supported Tom but people like Ceylon have leached off her.

She deserved a lot better than the path she's been lead down.

[Footloose52]

The more I read some of these farcebook threads involving the Crawfrauds the more I have to sit on my hands to stop me from screaming at them saying how stupid they have been and are still being. The comments on the Nottingham Post page range from factual in support of the paper to vile and threatening on the part of the FMOTL crowd - frightening that they walk amongst us in this age of supposed civilisation. In fact I would say we are less civilised than 30 or 40 years ago as 'self help' seems to extend to taking perceived justice (or is that revenge) for some imagined insult or action.

Mind you it does make entertaining reading. Fascinating how the 'supporters' rhetoric is always the same, someone says prove what you are saying and the supporters reply is always "we don't have to prove the truth, you will all see it for yourselves when you suffer the same fate".

Funny that - I don't have a mortgage any more since I paid it off so I won't be turfed out on that basis. I pay my bills when due unlike they seem to. I can see how their way could be attractive in some circumstances but common sense surely says it is all pie in the sky?

[SteveUK]

Fascinating how the 'supporters' rhetoric is always the same, someone says prove what you are saying and the supporters reply is always "we don't have to prove the truth, you will all see it for yourselves when you suffer the same fate".

The sweet sweet fate of SUCCESS!!!!1!!!!!BOOM!!!!!

[LocalResident]

BBC Local News (East midlands today) had a short report of the auctioning of Tom's old house

Not much to see but it will be available on the bbc iplayer app shortly I would think.

[NG3]

BBC Local News (East midlands today) had a short report of the auctioning of Tom's old house

Not much to see but it will be available on the bbc iplayer app shortly I would think.

For those interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... y-07102015

Starts about 9 1/2 minutes in and lasts about 25/30 seconds

[Hercule Parrot]

Nottingham care home survivor complainant

Let's not prejudge whatever investigations or trials take place...

[NG3]

Nottingham care home survivor complainant

Let's not prejudge whatever investigations or trials take place...

I grew up in this city, I had friends in Beechwood and other homes, I witnessed first hand some of the things that happened in those places.

Obviously I can't comment directly on Melanie's accusations, although we do have mutual friends (next street over in that video) who are completely convinced by what they've been told, however I can assure you there were many victims, including some that have taken their own lives, so I use the word survivor in that capacity.

Anyone who made it through, what was a very broken system, are survivors in my book.

[LordEd]

For those interested:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... y-07102015

Starts about 9 1/2 minutes in and lasts about 25/30 seconds

BBC iPlayer TV programmes are available to play in the UK only. Find out why.
If you are in the UK and see this message please read this advice.

Sure, when its the Magna Carta or UCC, who cares where it was made. When you want to watch a video clip, they go all jurisdiction on you.

[Jeffrey]

The only "evidence" the Crawford's have ever referred to was the letter from B&B which they lied about and claimed it was an apology for changing the mortgage without their permission (while refusing to show the full letter). Along with mortgage statements that support the banks version of events.

Meanwhile, the bank provided the mortgage contract Tom signed as evidence. Bank statements showing Mrs. Crawford stopped paying the endowment policy. And correspondence showing they had warned the Crawfords about a lack of repayment method at least 16 years prior to the eviction. Oh and that prior judgement that held that if the Crawford's stopped paying the mortgage they'd be evicted. (Which of course the Crawford's never told anyone about).

Amanda Pike knows this, she cannot possibly be this stupid.

[NG3]

The only "evidence" the Crawford's have ever referred to was the letter from B&B which they lied about and claimed it was an apology for changing the mortgage without their permission (while refusing to show the full letter). Along with mortgage statements that support the banks version of events.

Meanwhile, the bank provided the mortgage contract Tom signed as evidence. Bank statements showing Mrs. Crawford stopped paying the endowment policy. And correspondence showing they had warned the Crawfords about a lack of repayment method at least 16 years prior to the eviction. Oh and that prior judgement that held that if the Crawford's stopped paying the mortgage they'd be evicted. (Which of course the Crawford's never told anyone about).

Amanda Pike knows this, she cannot possibly be this stupid.

Yes, but that's the irrefutable evidence, they're not interested in that, what they've been demanding is that the bank produce some refutable evidence, so they can refute it, but the bank is not cooperating.

[Gregg]

Guys, guys, wait just a minute here. We have to remember than Tom isn't allowed to take anything into court, he's not allowed in the courthouse except the answer his various criminal charges and use the loo unless he gets a Judge's permission first. He's a vexatious litigant and is barred from just filing cases or documents with leave.

As far as any evidence the family Crawford has, if they tole me at midnight it was dark outside, I'd not accept it as true without looking out the window my self.

[FatGambit]

Tom's only barred from the Royal Courts of Justice, he could still bring a claim in a Country Court as long as it doesn't relate to B&B, he's not quiet on Ebert level yet.

[NG3]

Tom's only barred from the Royal Courts of Justice, he could still bring a claim in a Country Court as long as it doesn't relate to B&B, he's not quiet on Ebert level yet.

You know they read this site and he probably doesn't know that?

I now predict him bringing a case against someone unrelated to B&B, just to get into the court, only to then eventually get ejected for talking about nothing but B&B, akin to how Ebert kept insisting he was talking about sentencing, when he was in fact trying to argue that he'd never been convicted because reasons.