The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[PeanutGallery]

Quite simply in regard to whether the 98k is the amount now owed by the Crawfords to Bradford and Bingley/UKAR or the amount of the outstanding arrears added to the sale price is just speculation. It could easily be either. We can't know and won't know until B&B/UKAR take whatever step they are going to take next.

I can certainly see how Tom would have managed to rack up that sort of a bill based on his attempts to keep Fearn Chase and I don't think B&B/UKAR would have written those costs off, I imagine they know that Tom and Sue have inherited some assets and are going to pursue those.

All we can really do is sit, wait and watch the show because I think the next act is going to be something special.

[Pox]

Over on GOOFY they like to keep a tally of money saved using their methods.

All well and good, but 'money saved' to many seems to be - 'I have seen off one debt collection firm' not realising that the debt hasn't gone away but has just been returned to the debtor.

Periodically they gloat about how much has been 'saved'.

If they used POE's double entry bookkeeping method (nothing wrong with double entry - just the way he applies it) and included how much money has been LOST by using their methods, it wouldn't look too rosy.

The input of the Crawford figures (whatever they are) would make a serious dint in their largely fictitious 'money saved' figure.

Of course this won't happen - to be so open and transparent would burst the bubble.

[wanglepin]

Again I see the patience of a Judge and a Crawford out of his depth. It was sad to read as much as I am pleased he got what he exactly asked for.
Ebert, with just those few words he spoke did Crawford no favours.
I hope Ceylon Mark Haining feels pleased with himself, along with Sycophant Salie who perpetuated the claim of Crawford`s great "success".

[Normal Wisdom]

Well I've been fortunate enough to have read the full transcript and all I can say is f**k me. He has learned absolutely nothing in the last 15 years and wouldn't if he continues with this nonsense over the next 15. Just like Ebert and Taylor before him, he maintains all his original claims and far from resolving or advancing the case every court action merely adds to the number of issues that he wants to dispute.

[wanglepin]

all I can say is f**k me. He has learned absolutely nothing in the last 15 years and wouldn't if he continues with this nonsense over the next 15.

He /they will do exactly that. They will drag many along with them too. desperate people who could maybe save their homes unless they are unlucky enough to turn up in goofsville asking for help from Haining..

[PeanutGallery]

It's also worth keeping in mind that Tom is setting himself up as a guru who tries to help others whose homes are at risk. He advocates doing exactly what he did when by now he should be more than aware of the consequences. What is worse is that people, out of desperation and either a mistrust of solicitors or an inability to pay them will seek him out to get his advice.

He hasn't learned anything from this, he has experience of losing and losing and losing because he keeps making the same mistakes. Tom is a fool and other fools will follow him.

[AndyPandy]

Well I've been fortunate enough to have read the full transcript and all I can say is f**k me. He has learned absolutely nothing in the last 15 years and wouldn't if he continues with this nonsense over the next 15. Just like Ebert and Taylor before him, he maintains all his original claims and far from resolving or advancing the case every court action merely adds to the number of issues that he wants to dispute.

Right from the outset from his first post on GODF he was clutching at straws, he knew he was going to lose the house. I think most of those who are in the same boat pitch up there because they've been to a Solicitor who's said 'there's nothing I can do for you'.

Now he has lost the house,then why not go along with yet another hare brained scheme, from his point of view there's nothing left to lose and possibly everything to gain.

He's keen to keep Sue out of the litigation, maybe he believes putting applications in his name alone means she has no 'joinder' in their parlance and as such he's mistakenly of the belief he's protecting the asset she's come into (that's if she has inherited anywhere).

[YiamCross]

Crawford Transcript update.

Okay, for all those who have been sent copies of the transcript, Bradley Knight is planning a conference call via Google Hangouts on Sunday at 10am BST (GMT+1Hr). If you have a gmail account then you should be registered with G+ and joining the hangout will be a simple click of the mouse on the link you'll be sent if you respond to the email being sent out to everyone this evening.

For those of you who were too mean, or too poor or who just don't respond to begging c**ts asking for money then you may well be able to find the live stream on YouTube if you really want to listen in. It will as a matter of course become available on YouTube at some point for anyone who's not around but is desperate to listen to a bunch of depraved people waffle on about the Crawfords.

If you have a copy of the transcript and don't get an email telling you how to register your interest then PM me.

If anyone knows Tom Crawford's or Amanda Pike's email address then let me know and I'll seriously consider sending them a link so they can join in if they want to. How much fun would that be?

[Pox]

Crawford Transcript update.

For those of you who were too mean, or too poor or who just don't respond to begging c**ts asking for money then you may well be able to find the live stream on YouTube if you really want to listen in. It will as a matter of course become available on YouTube at some point for anyone who's not around but is desperate to listen to a bunch of depraved people waffle on about the Crawfords.

Have you had a tough day

[mufc1959]

Hi Yiam,

I got a copy of the first judgement from you but not this latest transcript. Any chance you could send it to my gmail a/c?

I need a bit of light entertainment this evening.

Ta.

[Hercule Parrot]

It's also worth keeping in mind that Tom is setting himself up as a guru who tries to help others whose homes are at risk. He advocates doing exactly what he did when by now he should be more than aware of the consequences. What is worse is that people, out of desperation and either a mistrust of solicitors or an inability to pay them will seek him out to get his advice.

TC's epic failure is widely reported now. Anyone who chooses to take his advice will just get what they deserve.

[wanglepin]

He's keen to keep Sue out of the litigation, maybe he believes putting applications in his name alone means she has no 'joinder' in their parlance and as such he's mistakenly of the belief he's protecting the asset she's come into (that's if she has inherited anywhere).

My thoughts exactly. And who can blame him. But as you say, it is a mistaken belief and if he cannot come up with the money owed , he can wave goodbye to Grannies pad too.)They had best get it signed over to a member of the family who is firing on more that one cell. It may be their only chance of saving it.

[notorial dissent]

They had best get it signed over to a member of the family who is firing on more that one cell. It may be their only chance of saving it.

From what I've seen, that doesn't seem like a viable option either.

[Losleones]

Diversion of assets will be jumped on by UKAR.

[Jeffrey]

"Tom Crawford's final bill"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmD0i03vJ-Q

Well you guys did say you wanted explosions.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Diversion of assets will be jumped on by UKAR.

This ^. Especially if it goes to bankruptcy. The judge in the bankruptcy hearing I was involved in put a date and time on the order to make it clear when the before and after point was. Unless SMH was disposed of carefully and cleverly in a will written before all this kicked off then the receiver will be after it.

[Bungle]

I'll try again now to come up with some figures.
(all in £k)
Mortgage 43
Arrears interest and arrears dept costs 10
Legal and court costs 35
Security costs 40
Bailiffs visits and the like 10
Selling costs estate agent fees etc. 10
Removals and storage 5
Total 153, minus sale of house 55 gives Tom and Sue a bill of 98.
Open to discussing and explaining my figures.

I think that you find find that Tom & Sue are in much deeper shit.
My understanding is that the figure of £98k is legal fees only.

All costs are recoverable under the mortgage conditions and once you add VAT (which he probably can’t recover) the bill for all the additional costs (bailiffs/removal/clean-up/storage/security) is likely come in at about £250k. With £98k added they could be looking at £350k.

I can’t imagine Sue’s mums house having that much equity so Tom and Sue will in all likelihood lose that and then be made bankrupt.

No worry though, rent-a-freetard will step in to stop that eviction.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I think that you find find that Tom & Sue are in much deeper shit.
My understanding is that the figure of £98k is legal fees only.

There's a Ben Kingsley clip I won't play at this moment.....

[Bungle]

They had best get it signed over to a member of the family who is firing on more that one cell. It may be their only chance of saving it.

So that's the son and daughter out of the picture.

Secondly, if they are both made bankrupt, then any transfer made at this stage would be seen by a trustee as a way in which to avoid paying and would almost certainly be overturn.

[Hercule Parrot]

Secondly, if they are both made bankrupt, then any transfer made at this stage would be seen by a trustee as a way in which to avoid paying and would almost certainly be overturn.

Yes, and also a criminal offence -

Transactions at Under Value
If before bankruptcy you sell your interest in any asset to anyone for less than its true worth, the Trustee may apply to the court for an order to reverse the sale. This can be considered 'unfit behaviour' and may result in a bankruptcy restriction order. This can apply to any asset, even if it was innocently given as a Christmas present to a spouse. In short, you just can not give stuff away in the hope this hides it from your creditors and excludes it from the bankruptcy.

The Trustee can apply to the court to have the transaction reversed if either of the following are true:-
# The transaction was performed up to 5 years before the bankruptcy, and you were insolvent at the time.
# The transaction was performed up to 2 years before bankruptcy.

http://www.harringtonbrooks.co.uk/bankr ... ion-orders

Section 357 Insolvency Act 1986 - Fraudulent disposal of property
(3) The bankrupt is guilty of an offence if he conceals or removes, or has at any time before the commencement of the bankruptcy concealed or removed, any part of his property after, or within 2 months before, the date on which a judgment or order for the payment of money has been obtained against him, being a judgment or order which was not satisfied before the commencement of the bankruptcy.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/45/section/357