The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[wanglepin]

Tom Crawford

16 hrs · Edited
Just a little reminder for those who Doubt.And

so what does the phrase he had the last laugh mean ?

388. Mr Crawford : … £43,000, they sold the property for £55,000, they put no costs in after the last hearing, they now are asking another £98,000 on top of that. [!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!]

98 grand.It means I am pissing myself, Tom.

[vampireLOREN]

Tom Crawford

16 hrs · Edited
Just a little reminder for those who Doubt.And

388. Mr Crawford : … £43,000, they sold the property for £55,000, they put no costs in after the last hearing, they now are asking another £98,000 on top of that. [!!!!!!!1!!!!!!!!!]

98 grand.It means I am pissing myself, Tom.

Hi All...My name is Tom, some of you may have heard of me?, was it just 15 months ago .
I bet for him it feels like a lifetime .

[notorial dissent]

£98k

I think it's fair to say people on this page were not far off estimating the costs against Tom, if this isn't a wake up to reality call to the freemen brigade I don't know what is. From rags to ruins or what?

Based on what I've seen to date, you are giving far to much credit for intelligence in that quarter. They will simply deny it ever happened.

Arthur, I think Tom would be well within his rights to sue his McKenzie friend(s), but I really doubt he'd be able to recover anything as they are just as big of useless feckless deadbeats as he is.

If they try real hard, I'm sure they can run the debt up even higher by further court antics and delaying tactics. At this rate we have all the makings of a true FOTL win.

Who says stupidity isn't expensive?

[NG3]

If they try real hard, I'm sure they can run the debt up even higher by further court antics and delaying tactics.

Who says stupidity isn't expensive?

We are supreme in our ability to run up debts with court antics.

William Jennens (possibly Jennings) (1701–1798), also known as William the Miser, William the Rich, and The Miser of Acton, was a reclusive financier who lived at Acton Place in the village of Acton, Suffolk, England. He was described as the "richest commoner in England" when he died unmarried and intestate with a fortune estimated at £2 million, worth in excess of £200 million at 2012 rates in which became the subject of legal wrangles (Jennens vs Jennens) in the Court of Chancery for well over a century until the entire estate had been swallowed by lawyers' fees.

[NYGman]

I think you all miss the point, add the new 98k to the home he lost, and this is one large debt Tom will get out of free, after Bankruptcy of course. Therefore it is a Large Victory, as Tom has lost 150k of debt, and will not need to worry about paying, of course this is after they get most of his worldly possessions.

[KickahaOta]

The transcript actually makes me rather sad. Don't get me wrong, large parts of it border on the hysterical (sometimes in two senses at once); but to repeat the analogy I used when I first glanced through it, it's like watching a car crash where the driver keeps backing up and smashing into the same wall over and over and over, because he's just that sure that there's really a road there.

But I'm glad we chipped in and got it -- this really needs to be out there.

And while I'm being sad, let's all bow our heads for a moment for The Honourable Mr. Justice Phillips... When Mr. Crawford filed for the hearing, he requested a 60-minute time block. Let's see how that went...

170. Mr Justice Phillips : This application, you estimated to be an hour, is that right?
171. Mr Crawford : Yes I thought so.
172. Mr Justice Phillips : So you’ve had over 35 minutes, so shall we hear from Bradford &
Bingley now?

401. Mr Justice Phillips : Now, we’ve already … we’ve already gone over the estimate for that
application by almost double, so now move on[...]

And there were another 183 points beyond that.

[Skeleton]

Well Tom has only got himself to blame but he will blame the corrupt Courts and scum bag Police. You would have thought this bill which he has had for some time would have woken him up to the fact that all the advice he took, and it seems in certain cases he paid for, from the likes of Taylor, Ebert and Ceylon, not forgetting the frequenters of GOODF presenting everything they say as legal and right, was advice that was clearly flawed and has not only cost him and his family their home, but will bankrupt him and quite possibly see him evicted a second time. Sadly though they won't take responsibility and Tom won't blame them. Car crash TV it indeed is and I doubt Tom has finished crashing yet.

On another note we still have not seen the warrant which he paid his legal expert team to forensically examine.

[SteveUK]

The transcript truly is a great read, and fair play to the judge, he remained reasonably patient given the tripe he was having to listen to.

So, now you really can put a price stupidity, c£98k , and probably counting.

Many thanks to Yiam & Co. for sorting it.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Arthur, I think Tom would be well within his rights to sue his McKenzie friend(s), but I really doubt he'd be able to recover anything as they are just as big of useless feckless deadbeats as he is.

Let's just think about that. If Tom had a case and the whole UKAR/B&B were criminally wrong, he would be looking at £55k + £98k + further costs + replacement household goods, fittings and furniture + compensation for the trauma + a chicken. £250k isn't far out.
But, due to his attitude and beliefs he is now £153k and counting, out of pocket. Has or will have to move twice. Is facing criminal charges. The next generation of Crawfords (Craig, Amanda, Nicola?) could have expected to get about £50k each as an inheritance, now they are looking at £50. Tom is going to end his days in near poverty on a caravan site. (Trailer park for those playing along in the colonies.)
I will wait to see what he does with SMH, because the obvious thing is to get it on the market asap.

[letissier14]

I would imagine B&B/UKAR know where Tom & Sue are living, and if Tom & Sue were to put SMH up for sale, B&B/UKAR would soon put a stop to that and start bankrupt proceedings against them.

[wanglepin]

98 grand!!!1!!!!
That`s chicken feed if we are to believe Amanda and Craig ( our dad can afford to buy his house 10 times over) Crawford.

Has Ellie of The Nottingham Post had a copy?

[ArthurWankspittle]

I would imagine B&B/UKAR know where Tom & Sue are living, and if Tom & Sue were to put SMH up for sale, B&B/UKAR would soon put a stop to that and start bankrupt proceedings against them.

I don't think so. I think they would just contact the estate agent and point out they have an interest in this and please tell us who is, or pass on this info to, the seller's solicitors. Then they might move with getting a charge on the house instead of the bankruptcy. Of course there is the slight problem of SMH minus costs not being > £98k plus costs.

[AndyPandy]

I would imagine B&B/UKAR know where Tom & Sue are living, and if Tom & Sue were to put SMH up for sale, B&B/UKAR would soon put a stop to that and start bankrupt proceedings against them.

I don't think so. I think they would just contact the estate agent and point out they have an interest in this and please tell us who is, or pass on this info to, the seller's solicitors. Then they might move with getting a charge on the house instead of the bankruptcy. Of course there is the slight problem of SMH minus costs not being > £98k plus costs.

That's assuming it was an 'owned' property and has been left to Sue !

No one seems to know the address.

[NG3]

Has Ellie of The Nottingham Post had a copy?

Not yet, as far as I know.

She has a copy of the judgement but not the transcript.

[letissier14]

Has Ellie of The Nottingham Post had a copy?

Not yet, as far as I know.

She has a copy of the judgement but not the transcript.

She has been sent a copy apparently, as have the BBC, I was told last night.

[SoLongCeylon]

I thought there was supposed to be an embargo on the transcript until Monday???

Anyway, it is a good read but I think this £98k figure is not correct.

Consider :

£43k amount owed at end of mortgage - House sold for £55k 43 + 55 = 98!

I think, reading the transcript, Tom has mistaken what was being said by and he has just added the two figures up. Not surprising when you consider this inability to understand virtually anything else properly.

Elsewhere in the transcript,(341 onwards) the B&B Barrister states "I have no consequential applications in relation to costs the reason for that being that the Bradley and Bingley will rely on its right to a contractual indemnity under the
mortgage conditions …" See also 342 to 352

AS yet, IMO the B&B haven't ( or hadnt as of the date of this Court hearing ) added it all up - but the message here, it they WILL BE.

Therefore, I think the figure of £98k is not the shortfall.

[fat frank]

I would imagine B&B/UKAR know where Tom & Sue are living, and if Tom & Sue were to put SMH up for sale, B&B/UKAR would soon put a stop to that and start bankrupt proceedings against them.

I don't think so. I think they would just contact the estate agent and point out they have an interest in this and please tell us who is, or pass on this info to, the seller's solicitors. Then they might move with getting a charge on the house instead of the bankruptcy. Of course there is the slight problem of SMH minus costs not being > £98k plus costs.

That's assuming it was an 'owned' property and has been left to Sue !

No one seems to know the address.

if the house was left to the kids, BB could declare them bankrupt then let the OR argue in court this was done to avoid tom and sue losing it, so could contest the will, but even if its in sues name, sue is on mortgage, so could still take the house

but remember tom and sue said they won, so why would they need to avoid putting house in there name

[Joinder]

Tom actually thought he would get justice from the corrupt courts against a fraudulent bank ?
Has anyone tried "reading between the lines" to find out what the transcript really means ?

[#six]

Tom actually thought he would get justice from the corrupt courts against a fraudulent bank ?
Has anyone tried "reading between the lines" to find out what the transcript really means ?

Ok - I'll have a stab at this.

Crawford: I want my house back
Judge: But you lost your case
Crawford: No I won
Judge: But you lost
Crawford: But I won
Judge. No. Really... You lost.
Crawford: But I won

Repeat for 2 hours

Judge: I'm preventing you from bringing any more cases before this court
Crawford: Oh. Bollox.

[AndyPandy]

Judge: I'm preventing you from bringing more cases before this Court.
Crawford: no you can't do that

Judge: yes, I can
Crawford: no you can't

Judge: I've just done it
Crawford: what about the Supreme Court, you can't ban me from there

Judge: OK