Case No: 1HQ/15/0503
In the HIGH COURT of JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
3rd September 2015
B E F O R E:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PHILLIPS
_____________________
Hearing
_____________________
No. of folios in transcript: 201
No. of words in transcript: 14443
CRAWFORD Claimant
-v-
BRADFORD & BINGLEY PLC
Defendant
Compril Limited
Telephone: 01642 232324
Facsimile: 01642 244001
Denmark House
169-173 Stockton Street
Middlehaven
Middlesbrough
TS2 1BY
1. Mr Crawford : Good morning, may my colleague sit beside me to pass my papers, etc?
2. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes. Sorry, who is your colleague?
3. Mr Crawford : This is Mr Ebert. E B E R T.
4. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes. Mr Crawford.
5. Mr Crawford : I’ve made this application today, as it states, to reinstate my position in
fact under common law, and to bring to the point that under the Protection of Eviction Act
and harassment and the UN Convention 1950, 1952 articles 3, 5.4, 6 and 8. Where
Bradford & Bingley and their colleagues have violated all of those Acts and my whole case,
I will not talk about merits of the case, I will only bring facts that Bradford & Bingley in
previous hearings have refused to answer. They’ve brought no evidence and I asked this in
my skeleton argument, I asked them to answer ten specific points. This they did not do.
They ignored His Honour Green’s order and didn’t serve the court with any papers.
6. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, Mr Justice Green made an order …
7. Mr Crawford : That was on the 18th.
8. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes. Right. And what do you say should have been served on you
then?
9. Mr Crawford : Well “the respondent shall file and serve evidence on the applicant and
the court by 4pm on 28th August.”
10. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, well didn’t you receive a witness statement from …
11. Mr Crawford : A witness statement, but they didn’t answer any of the points.
12. Mr Justice Phillips : No but it doesn’t require them to answer any points, it’s whatever
evidence they want to file in answer to your application.
13. Mr Crawford : Right, okay. That was my point, they answered nothing.
14. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, but in a sense the first thing you have to do is make your case.
15. Mr Crawford : Okay.
16. Mr Justice Phillips : You can ask as many questions as you like, but at the end of the day
…
17. Mr Crawford : I might not get an answer, I understand.
18. Mr Justice Phillips : Okay, can I just understand one thing. The position now is that the
property was repossessed and has now been sold to a third party, who has presumably paid
a significant sum of money for it, and has now been registered as the owner of the property.
What about their position? Are they not the owner of the property now, on the face of it?
19. Mr Crawford : Anything that’s been taken through deception, fraud, you cannot hold an
advantage over another person.
20. Mr Justice Phillips : But they’re a third party who’s paid for the property in good faith,
aren’t they?
21. Mr Crawford : Then that third party must take that up with Bradford & Bingley.
22. Mr Justice Phillips : But that’s not the law is it? The law is that a third party purchaser
who buys … is registered as the title is deemed as a matter of law to be the owner and you
haven’t even served this claim on the registered owner, have you?
23. Mr Crawford : I’d say that for instance when let’s say a vehicle has been stolen, the
police will come and repossess that vehicle …
24. Mr Justice Phillips : There’s complex law on that isn’t there, about if a vehicle is stolen,
if you are a bona fide purchaser without notice, issues arise under … is it section 25? So …
25. Mr Crawford : They couldn’t have registered this claim because as is the owners, were
never notified …
26. Mr Justice Phillips : Well say now somebody came along and said well actually I was the
real owner of that property and when Mr Crawford bought it he didn’t … though he paid for
it and was registered, he doesn’t actually own it.
27. Mr Crawford : Okay.
28. Mr Justice Phillips : You wouldn’t be very happy about that would you? You’d say I
paid for it and I’m registered on the title.
29. Mr Crawford : I signed all the documents, I did … it was in my name, it went in my
name for 25 years, 27 years in all, I was never notified …
30. Mr Justice Phillips : Don’t you think the current registered owner might be entitled
before anything happens here to have a say?
31. Mr Crawford : Well I’d suggest that no. Not in law, no I don’t think so.
32. Mr Justice Phillips : Right thank you. So, right, so in any event a possession order was
made against you in 2012 and …
33. Mr Crawford : No, it wasn’t, I never received a possession order in 2012. If you read my
…
34. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, but wasn’t this all dealt with and argued about in the long
judgment of the court in …
35. Mr Crawford : His Honour Judge Godsmark, you’re referring to?
36. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes. Yes.
37. Mr Crawford : These points have never been dealt with.
38. Mr Justice Phillips : The point is that at the end of the day what happened was that he
made an order in which he granted you permission to appeal, dismissed your appeal and
lifted the suspension on enforcement, so that’s what the court has ordered. And you’re now
trying to reargue that aren’t you?
39. Mr Crawford : No, no. The judgment was fine. It was excellent. But in fact the order
that was passed down it didn’t reflect the actual judgment.
40. Mr Justice Phillips : Right.
41. Mr Crawford : The order that came out was misleading, we became the defendants, it
wasn’t heard in the County Court, it was heard in the Family Court, we asked for a review
and revise hearing and this was totally ignored by the filing staff at Nottingham County
Court.
42. Mr Justice Phillips : You’re going to have to explain to me a bit more carefully. Can you
explain to me why the order doesn’t reflect the … where do I find the order? I’ve got it in a
bundle which was sent by … the defendant’s bundle at page 74. Order 14th May.
43. Mr Crawford : That would be as my understanding, of the actual judgment itself, if you
could just have a quick read of the highlighted points.
44. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, I’ve read that, have the … have you seen this?
45. Mr West : My Lord, yes, my learned friend Mr Walder and I have just seen it now and
looked through it very quickly.
46. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes Mr Crawford, so … well at the end of the day, the order that
was made is the one I’ve got at page 74 of 14th May.
47. Mr Crawford : The order … Deputy Judge Murray Smith, is that the one that you’re
referring to?
48. Mr Justice Phillips : No I’m looking at the order of His Honour Judge Godsmark.
49. Mr Crawford : Yes I see this one. On this, the original suspended order which we have
received from Bradford & Bingley’s solicitors, I think you’ll find it on their number 36, if
you’d be so kind as to look at that.
50. Mr Justice Phillips : 36. That may be 36 of the exhibits, is it?
51. Mr Crawford : It is yes.
52. Mr West : Your 77 of the main bundle.
53. Mr Justice Phillips : Thank you very much yes. Right, so that’s an order for possession,
suspended, not enforced so long as you pay the current instalments.
54. Mr Crawford : Could this be considered a document of the court? If so please tell me
where the seal on this document is?
55. Mr Justice Phillips : Right. So you say what then?
56. Mr Crawford : It isn’t sealed and this has been suspended and the reason why it’s been
suspended to give us time to pay any arrears and if I pass you …
57. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
58. Mr Crawford : This is why I said that we will deal with facts not fiction that Bradford &
Bingley and Morris Walker have been doing towards my family and myself. If you go to
the document that I’ve just given you, you’ll see that we pay right to the very last month,
there is no arrears. They fraudulently claimed and misled the court that we were in debt.
Now these allegations are serious and I believe that both Bradford & Bingley and their
solicitors should be taken to task for this.
59. Mr Justice Phillips : But if that was right …
60. Mr Crawford : Yes it is right, yes.
61. Mr Justice Phillips : … then that is something which would be a matter to appeal
wouldn’t it? Which you attempted to do before His Honour Judge Godsmark.
62. Mr Crawford : Godsmark.
63. Mr Justice Phillips : And he refused you, refused to allow your appeal.
64. Mr Crawford : I do not believe that those documents were filed into the court at the time.
I may be in error there, but …
65. Mr Justice Phillips : So you’d need to pursue an appeal to the Court of Appeal wouldn’t
you?
66. Mr Crawford : No, no.
67. Mr Justice Phillips : Well how can I … how can I … I don’t have jurisdiction to …
there’s an order of the court which I can’t overturn.
68. Mr Crawford : Yes okay.
69. (takes advice from his colleague)
70. Mr Crawford : His Honour Godsmark, in this document and I believe that is in his
judgment, this is page … this is 91 of his judgment, he could not find at the time of
commencement of possession proceedings, where a total of £1,802.90, and he states here
“that is not a figure that I could identify from the statements” and when he asked the
barristers where it came from Ms Sanders told him “from the computer”. And as he said
here, “the computer should be our slave, not our master”. He knew that there was a
problem with the accounts. We’d insisted that Bradford & Bingley produce accounts; the
only things they produced was three payments which is in that document, which I’ve just
passed up to you.
71. Mr Justice Phillips : He goes on to say: “However, none of this helps Mr Crawford in
relation to possession. The entitlement to possession is triggered by…”.
72. Mr Crawford : (inaudible) page 44 … paragraph 44. 82.
73. Mr Justice Phillips : Right. Paragraph 45 records that you stopped making payments
whilst the possession order was suspended on condition that you make payments.
74. Mr Crawford : No, the evidence is that we paid right to the very, very last month, and
plus an extra one on top of it.
75. Mr Justice Phillips : So it looks as though you don’t agree with the judge’s decision.
76. Mr Crawford : We agree with it, to the extent that if he had passed down the order
correctly, we should still be in our home.
77. Mr Justice Phillips : What I really don’t understand, Mr Crawford, is what you’re asking
this court to do and at the moment the position is that the property has been repossessed,
and it has been sold to a third party who now owns it and presumably are themselves in
possession of it. That the order for possession now is … has been superseded by the …
78. Mr Crawford : There is no order for possession Sir.
79. Mr Justice Phillips : No the position, it has now been superseded by the fact that the
property has been … the bank at the end of the day can sell the property. It doesn’t need an
order for possession to sell the property. What it needs is an order for vacant possession, in
order that it can sell with vacant possession. But the fact of the matter is that the bank has
now sold the property, as mortgagee.
80. Mr Crawford : The property wasn’t vacant.
81. Mr Justice Phillips : No of course it wasn’t vacant.
82. Mr Crawford : They removed us unlawfully. We are still tenants of that property.
83. Mr Justice Phillips : But what are you asking the court, this court, to do?
84. Mr Crawford : I’m still a tenant of that property, I’m an owner, I’m also the landlord and
I am the tenant, I am all three in one.
85. Mr Justice Phillips : Well what you did was, you don’t dispute do you that you
mortgaged the property.
86. Mr Crawford : Sorry?
87. Mr Justice Phillips : You mortgaged the property.
88. Mr Crawford : It’s paid for.
89. Mr Justice Phillips : You mortgaged the property with the Bradford & Bingley.
90. Mr Crawford : It’s paid for, we paid 25 years, plus an extra month. If Bradford &
Bingley are correct in what they did, we asked them to produce the accounts for this. There
is one other thing that I have to bring to your attention, right from the very start in my
skeleton argument and let me just go straight to it so I don’t get confused.
91. In my skeleton argument we’ve never received an application, that is a fact, for a
possession. Neither the court, nor Bradford & Bingley have ever produced evidence that a
fee has been paid and there has been no notice of issue. And that can be confirmed by I
think …
92. Mr Justice Phillips : But here we’re not concerned are we with the issuing or the fees,
what we’re concerned with is what the court order was.
93. Mr Crawford : Yes I think we (inaudible).
94. Mr Justice Phillips : Order for possession …
95. Mr Crawford : Nothing can start unless a fee has been paid and it’s been registered in the
court.
96. Mr Justice Phillips : Well the court can make an order without a fee being paid.
97. Mr Crawford : So I can come in and put in claims and … for nothing?
98. Mr Justice Phillips : Well no, because the court will normally require you to pay a fee,
but it doesn’t have to.
99. Mr Crawford : Right so are you telling me Sir that Bradford & Bingley have got this
facility that they can issue documents into the court and claims (inaudible).
100. Mr Justice Phillips : No my understanding is that they paid by credit card.
101. Mr Crawford : My understanding is that …
102. Mr Justice Phillips : I don’t understand how any of this helps you because at the end of
the day none of this makes the court’s order invalid, but even if it did, your remedy would
be to appeal, wouldn’t it?
103. Mr Crawford : To reinstate me, because it’s been done criminally.
104. Mr Justice Phillips : But what do you mean by “reinstate” you?
105. Mr Crawford : Put me back in the position in fact that they stole my property and
(inaudible).
106. Mr Justice Phillips : But they didn’t steal it because there was a warrant for possession.
107. Mr Crawford : Where is this warrant then?
108. Mr Justice Phillips : Well my understanding is …
109. Mr Crawford : Judge Godsmark never seen it.
110. Mr Justice Phillips : Well apparently the court say that it was given to you.
111. Mr Crawford : Yes, but where is this warrant, it was never issued to me, the …
112. Mr Justice Phillips : Did you receive a warrant from the court?
113. Mr Crawford : No.
114. Mr Justice Phillips : You didn’t?
115. Mr Crawford : No. I got a facsimile that looks like a warrant …
116. Mr Justice Phillips : Can I see that please?
117. Mr Crawford : I don’t have it with me.
118. Mr Justice Phillips : You don’t have it with you?
119. Mr Crawford : No. I’ve requested that Bradford & Bingley and the court to serve it on
me. When they stole my property they broke common law and they also broke the human
rights. In common law the bailiff, the appointed bailiff is supposed to identify himself to
me, or to my wife. This he refused to do. He didn’t produce the warrant. On the day they
forced entry, they drive my wife out of the house, she’s telling them that her mother has just
died, she was in the morgue, they paid no attention to a vulnerable persons as they’re
obliged to do, they should have left at that point. They followed no procedure for the CPS,
whatsoever. They violated our human rights. Either this court stands for a man’s rights, or
it stands for a commercial company to violate them. That’s how I see it.
120. Mr Justice Phillips : Well in relation to the execution of the warrant …
121. Mr Crawford : Yes.
122. Mr Justice Phillips : … it seems to me that there may be claims that you can bring in
relation to that regard, but what you’re seeking at the moment, you initiated proceedings
and you’re coming to court today asking for an interlocutory order, there’s no trial, there’s
no evidence, there’s no witnesses. You’re asking for the court to do on a … you issued
these proceedings, is it on 18th August? And here we are on 3rd September and you want
what, a summary judgment … is this an application for summary judgment? Is it an
application for …
123. Mr Crawford : Just for an injunction.
124. Mr Justice Phillips : An injunction? Is this an interim injunction?
125. Mr Crawford : No.
126. Mr Justice Phillips : It’s a permanent injunction?
127. Mr Crawford : Unless Bradford & Bingley can produce all the evidence that they relied
on and that they never produced; the fee that they started it off …
128. Mr Justice Phillips : Forgive me, this goes back to the possession order and the warrant,
the grant of it. It seems to me that if you want to complain about the possession order and
the issue of the warrant you have to attack the underlying court order and judgment which
you can only do by way of appealing. If you’re seeking to complain about new matters,
namely the execution of the warrant, then that’s another matter. It doesn’t seem to me …
129. Mr Crawford : I’m complaining about the whole procedure where they violated my wife
and myself human rights. Now …
130. Mr Justice Phillips : So what’s your claim for that, what are you claiming?
131. Mr Crawford : I’m claiming that they didn’t have the proper jurisdiction, they didn’t
have the documentation to come as thieves and drag my wife out and steal my property.
And deprive us of our goods. And that’s under the tort and Interference with Goods Act.
They were well aware of how they should carry out …
132. Mr Justice Phillips : But your house isn’t a … your home was real property, it’s not a
chattel.
133. Mr Crawford : They took my chattels as well.
134. Mr Justice Phillips : Took chattels as well.
135. (some background conversation)
136. Mr Justice Phillips : Who is that gentleman?
137. Mr Crawford : Sorry?
138. Mr Justice Phillips : Who’s the gentleman assisting you now?
139. Mr Crawford : He’s an ex-police officer that assists with private prosecutions.
140. Mr Justice Phillips : And his name is?
141. Mr Hurst : John Hurst, H U R S T.
142. Mr Crawford : Sorry, I forgot, you’ll have to excuse me, I’ve got short term memory
problems. Judge Godsmark found it unsatisfactory that the barrister couldn’t prove her
case. They didn’t turn up in court for the simple fact that they’d perjured themselves in
court and that’s why they didn’t bring any costs to the table for the actual passing down of
the order. He was not satisfied with Bradford & Bingley’s solicitors. I was reminded that
in the McCready case in Northern Ireland, hearsay is not acceptable and that’s all we’ve had
out of Bradford & Bingley, they’ve never produced any evidence …
143. Mr Justice Phillips : Hearsay evidence not acceptable in civil proceedings?
144. Mr Crawford : Yes.
145. Mr Justice Phillips : Well hearsay is fully admissible in civil proceedings.
146. Mr Crawford : The McCready case, I’m told, has altered that now.
147. Mr Justice Phillips : Have you got a copy of that?
148. Mr Crawford : I wasn’t prepared for that, I’m just going on the facts. I wasn’t going to
go into the merits of the case, I was basically putting in front of you that this is the evidence
and they haven’t produced any on the other side, they’ve just gone on hearsay. I mean
accounts, all they showed was three missed payments, when I was ill, I was seriously ill for
a few years and we got behind with the payments and immediately, after paying for 24
years, Bradford & Bingley came after our property.
149. Mr Justice Phillips : Well yes, but that’s exactly the sort of situation…
150. Mr Crawford : Yes that’s right.
151. Mr Justice Phillips : … where the court will make a suspended possession order to …
what the court said was, at that time, that although you were in arrears, they didn’t require
you to even pay the arrears, all they required, the court required of you was to continue
making the mortgage payments.
152. Mr Crawford : That’s what we did. That is the crux of the matter, but the suspended …
153. Mr Justice Phillips : You have to take this stage by stage. You say you missed three
payments.
154. Mr Crawford : That’s correct.
155. Mr Justice Phillips : The result of that was that the Bradford & Bingley were entitled to
apply for an order for possession, which they did.
156. Mr Crawford : There’s no argument there.
157. Mr Justice Phillips : And the court made exactly the order you’d expect. Which is an
order for suspended possession …
158. Mr Crawford : That’s correct.
159. Mr Justice Phillips : … suspended provided that you made your payments.
160. Mr Crawford : So you put your finger directly on the problem, it’s a suspended order,
where is the order to lift that suspension? And the hearing to lift that suspension?
161. Mr Justice Phillips : Well that was done by His Honour Judge Godsmark, he lifted the
suspension on the issue of a warrant.
162. Mr Crawford : No, they claimed that I hadn’t paid, and I had.
163. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, well that’s a matter … well that would be a matter to
challenge the order of His Honour Judge Godsmark wouldn’t it?
164. Mr Crawford : I mean this is why I’m here, that …
165. Mr Justice Phillips : Forgive me, there’s an order of His Honour Judge Godsmark, which
determines the point and there are principles of issue estoppel and res judicata which mean
that I can’t go back on the judge’s order. All you can do is appeal it isn’t it? How can I …
166. (background conversation between Mr Crawford and his advisers)
167. Mr Crawford : Fraud vacates everything, there’s fraud in this and the fraud is they
claimed that it wasn’t paid, I’ve just produced the evidence that it has been paid.
168. Mr Justice Phillips : Right.
169. Mr Crawford : So that vacates anything that they bring. Everything I’m putting in front
of you here is provable. All I want Bradford & Bingley to do is produce a receipt for a fee
or a notice of issue. And the accounts. Just the accounts. (inaudible).
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?
173. Mr Crawford : Let them answer to the claims that they fraudulent deceived myself and
my wife. And they haven’t complied.
174. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, Mr West.
175. Mr West : My Lord, I’m not going to rehearse what I’ve said in the skeleton or the
chronology.
176. Mr Justice Phillips : No. By all means do remain seated, it’s not very convenient here for
you to stand.
177. Mr West : To answer the specific points made by Mr Crawford, in the first place, he
questions the accuracy of the judgment. Your Honour’s seen the judgment on page 74.
And it consists of three paragraphs. First of all permission to appeal out of time is granted.
Secondly that permission to appeal is refused. Thirdly, that the stay of execution on the
warrant is lifted. Now that is, in my respectful submission, an accurate order, based on first
of all paragraph one, wishing to appeal out of time is granted and you see that the learned
judge dealt with that at paragraphs 18 to 20 of his judgment which appears at page 49.
178. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
179. Mr West : In fact, the Bradford & Bingley was content that the application should
proceed out of time. We see that from the beginning of paragraph 20.
180. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
181. Mr West : So paragraph one of the order accurately reflects the terms of the judgment at
paragraphs 18 to 20.
182. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
183. Mr West : Paragraphs 2 to 3 of the judgment accurately reflect the final paragraph,
paragraph 104 of the judgment, which appears on the preceding page, page 73.
184. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
185. Mr West : Then in his claim form and application notice, Mr Crawford makes a number
of points. First of all he says he never received notification of the issue of the possession
proceedings, but it is quite clear from paragraph 4 of Judge Godsmark’s judgment that he
filed a defence as long ago as 14th September 2012, page 44. So quite clearly the
possession proceedings had come to his notice. The second matter that he raises is the nonpayment
of the issue fee and Judge Godsmark deals with that at paragraphs 54 to 58 and 60
of his judgment, which appear at pages 60 and 61 of the bundle.
186. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
187. Mr West : Thirdly, he says that no valid possession order was ever granted, the answer to
that is yes it was. The original order was that of Deputy District Judge Murray Smith,
which we’ve seen on page 77, dated 12th September, so 19th September 2012. Then of
course there is the order of …
188. Mr Justice Phillips : This has come from the court system has it?
189. Mr West : This has come from the court system yes.
190. Mr Justice Phillips : Does the bank have a copy of the original?
191. Mr West : Yes, but it’s not here in court today. Then there is the order of His Honour
Judge Godsmark which we’ve seen at page 74.
192. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
193. Mr West : Fourthly, Mr Crawford says that in fact the mortgage account was up to date,
there were no arrears, the endowment policy had been paid and so on, and His Honour
Judge Godsmark deals with that at paragraphs 11 to 12 of his judgment at pages 46 to 47.
194. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
195. Mr West : He explains that:
“Having ceased to make the monthly mortgage repayments, Mr and Mrs Crawford put
themselves in breach of the terms of the suspension of the original order, whereupon the
Bradford & Bingley sought to enforce the possession order.”
196. He continues at paragraph 23, that’s on page 50, that:
“It became clear that the endowment policy taken out at the same time as the loan had been
surrendered or lapsed, but either way it was no longer available.”
197. Then at paragraphs 26 to 27 he finds that:
“In 1999 the Bradford & Bingley offered to move the Crawfords to a repayment mortgage,
but the Crawfords in fact refused.”
198. This is important because Mr Crawford’s case is that the Bradford & Bingley changed the
mortgage to a repayment without his agreement. The position has today been clarified; it is
clear that the Bradford & Bingley offered to convert the mortgage to repayment and it is
agreed that Mr Crawford refused this. And paragraph 27:
“When Bradford & Bingley commenced possession proceedings in August 2012 the
Crawfords were in arrears, not having made any mortgage repayments for at least three
months.”
199. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
200. Mr West : Then we go on to paragraphs 45 to 49, when at pages 56 and 57 His Honour
deals with the question of the Crawfords stopping making further payments on the
expiration of the 25 years granted on the original mortgage. And he explains how, under
the terms of the mortgage conditions, Mr Crawford is wrong in his contentions that he was
never liable to make further payments after 25 years. And he sets out the mortgage
conditions. He explains in paragraph 47 that:
“The obligation to repay does not cease at the end of 25 years, but only when the total debt is
repaid.”
201. Paragraph 48:
“In September 2013, the Crawfords were still obliged to make monthly repayments even
though the 25 years had expired. The decision to cease those payments was disastrous,
because it put the Crawfords in breach of the terms of the possession order.”
202. Then at paragraphs 92 to 94, he explains that:
“Nothing helped Mr Crawford in terms of possession …” (this is page 71) “… the entitlement
to possession being triggered by arrears amounting to two months’ 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.”
203. Then Mr Crawford went on to make various allegations of fraudulent mis-representation, on
the part of Bradford & Bingley. Those were thoroughly ventilated on the last occasion and
were dealt with by His Honour Judge Godsmark at paragraphs 77 to 80 of his judgment,
which appears at page 67.
204. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
205. Mr West : And you see that the last two lines of the paragraph at the foot of the page:
“I can find no basis for saying that any statements of the nature identified by Mr Crawford
were made to the court.”
206. Mr Crawford then complained about the absence of the warrant for possession itself. Now
that is dealt with Ms (inaudible) in paragraph 24 of her witness statement, which is at page
37 of the bundle.
207. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes, I’ve read that.
208. Mr West : And she explains that the warrant itself is a court document, no copy of the
warrant itself was forwarded to Bradford & Bingley’s solicitors. However, she says that
she was aware that Mr Crawford previously made application to the court requesting sight
of the warrant, which was subsequently granted and she refers the court to the letters sent to
the claimant by Mr (inaudible) of Nottingham County Court, which confirms that Mr
Crawford was provided with a copy of the warrant itself by the counter clerk on 12th
August.
209. Now, in my respectful submission, this application is completely misconceived. Your
Lordship is quite right, the only way in which Mr Crawford could now advance matters in
relation to the making of the possession order, the dismissal of his appeal against that
possession order, the execution of the warrant and the sale of the property would be to
mount an appeal; that he has not sought to do. Were he now of course to seek to do so, he
would face the additional hurdle that this would be a second appeal with the restrictions on
second appeals, in my submission there is no basis to mount a second appeal. Indeed, it
would now be hopelessly out of time. But this is now at least the third occasion in this saga
when Mr Crawford has made an application which, in my respectful submission, should be
stigmatised as being completely without merit.
210. Mr Crawford : Oh I do apologise.
211. Mr West : Now he has done that twice before. And there are specific orders of the court
to precisely that effect. The first of them was the order made by District Judge Macmillan
on 16th May 2014, that appears at page 95 of the bundle.
212. Mr Justice Phillips : Is this now in relation to your application for a civil restraint order?
213. Mr West : Yes.
214. Mr Crawford : I haven’t finished with my case before …
215. Mr Justice Phillips : Well …
216. Mr Crawford : Okay.
217. Mr Justice Phillips : Mr West, I think it’s not appropriate to deal with that until we’ve
dealt with the instant application. I think it’s important that we deal with today’s
application first, before looking at matters, if we do at all, more broadly. Is there anything
else you want to say on this matter?
218. Mr West : There’s nothing else that I need to say on this, but my learned friend, Mr
Walder, who appears for the Nottingham Land Registry, I think has something to add.
219. Mr Justice Phillips : Insofar as the claim … insofar as the claim is seeking to reinstate his
position, in other words to place him back as the owner of the property, what would that …
what would that require the court to do? The court would have to make an order in what,
rectifying language I suppose?
220. Mr West : Well what you would have to do …
221. Mr Justice Phillips : He’d have to join the current registered owner.
222. Mr West : You’d have to join Mr (inaudible) … I’ll leave Mr Walder to make his
submissions as to whether or not the Land Registry itself would need to be party to those
proceedings. The court would, well it would first have to set aside the possession order, I
suppose. It would have to …
223. Mr Justice Phillips : Well it wouldn’t would it, because it’s not the possession order that
deals with ownership is it?
224. Mr West : It would have to consider under the Land Registration Act 2002 the basis on
which the Register should be rectified or altered, to remove the name of the current
registered proprietor and indeed the current mortgagee.
225. Mr Justice Phillips : But the register was altered by virtue of the fact that the bank, as the
mortgagee in possession, sold to a third party, who would have been automatically
registered.
226. Mr West : Yes.
227. Mr Justice Phillips : So you can’t say the Register has been … there’s any mistake in the
Register.
228. Mr West : No.
229. Mr Justice Phillips : So there would be no basis for rectifying the Register.
230. Mr West : Yes. And there would be the additional difficulty of course, you’d be seeking
to rectify or alter the Register against a registered proprietor in possession.
231. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes. Doesn’t seem to me there’s any basis for that as a matter of
law anyway. Right, as far as the procedural position is concerned, have you filed an
acknowledgment of service yet?
232. Mr West : Yes.
233. Mr Justice Phillips : But this is not the hearing of the part 8 claim. This is some form of
interim application.
234. Mr West : This is some form of interim application, yes. So technically, what has
happened is that a part 8 claim form has been issued, well effectively a part 8 claim form
has been issued, and that’s what we see at tab 1, pages 1 and 2.
235. Mr Justice Phillips : But you haven’t applied to strike out the claim?
236. Mr West : No, we simply say that it should be dismissed.
237. Mr Justice Phillips : But you haven’t applied for it, so saying.
238. Mr West : No, we’ve applied simply … we say simply in defence that the application
should be struck out. Or the application should be dismissed. And this is for later, but on
the back of that a civil restraint order should be made. But the court of course has inherent
jurisdiction to strike it out, in any event. We’ve not been served with any particulars of
claim, because all that we’ve had are the brief details of the claim on page 1, and the
application notice on pages 3 and 4, with a skeleton argument in support, so we’ve not
actually seen the properly formulated claim in any event.
239. Mr Justice Phillips : There isn’t actually any evidence in support of it is there?
240. Mr West : No. There’s just Mr Crawford’s witness statement, but there’s no witness
statement by Mr Crawford in support of his application.
241. Mr Crawford : What’s that?
242. Mr Justice Phillips : Forgive me, Mr Crawford, you have a right of reply. Mr Crawford
has served a witness statement then in support of the part 8 claim.
243. Mr West : No, I think Your Honour will find that it’s a skeleton argument which is at
page 7.
244. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, has he served a witness statement?
245. Mr West : No, not in support of these proceedings which are before the court on the
(inaudible) occassion.
246. Mr Justice Phillips : Right. Thank you very much. Now, Mr Crawford.
247. Mr Crawford : Yes, we have a witness statement, Sir.
248. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m going to deal with this one at a time, we’ll come back to the
application against the Land Registry in a moment. Mr Crawford hasn’t made any such
application yet.
249. Mr Walder : My Lord, there is an order of the court that names the Nottingham Land
Registry as respondent.
250. Mr Justice Phillips : No, I’m going to ask Mr Crawford in a moment what his application
is against you.
251. Mr Walder : I’m grateful.
252. Mr Justice Phillips : Let’s deal with one at a time. Yes, Mr Crawford do you want to
reply to Mr West.
253. Mr Crawford : Yes. Once again, Bradford & Bingley’s solicitors waffle on about certain
things and ignore the facts. The facts are that if you go to the document I passed up to you,
page 12, for instance, a request to reissue the warrant that they all acted on and stole my
property, if you look at the box, where it’s got an X next to it, and they signed it. And the
amount and the balance due is shown. Obviously, I don’t owe anything to have this request
for a warrant. Where was the warrant, why wasn’t it issued to me in good time? I’ve
written to the court many times, so I could take legal advice on it, in good time. This was
not done. And then at number 30:
“Your request for a warrant for possession of land has been referred to District Judge Lloyd
Jones, who has made the following comments. Unless interest payments due under the
mortgage, the order is to be paid on the 19th.”
254. There were no arrears.
255. Mr Justice Phillips : Right now this is …
256. Mr Crawford : That’s on 21st September.
257. Mr Justice Phillips : This is before …
258. Mr Crawford : November.
259. Mr Justice Phillips : This is before the judgment of His Honour Judge Godsmark.
260. Mr Crawford : Yes. So it was all based on … I’ve only received this now from … yes,
this is what I received from the court and if you go to Paul King’s letter, which is page 2,
it’s a very nice story Mr King writes here but he does confirm that they do not have a
receipt for the payments to instigate this claim against us and they did not issue a notice …
did not file notice of issue to prove that any fees had been paid. This … His Honour
Godsmark did note, but his exact words were, “I would expect someone …” the easiest way
for me to explain it is for somebody to get on the bus, make a nice long journey and get off
the other end without paying. It’s totally unlawful, unless there’s an inspector and you’ve
taken that position as the inspector today and say where’s your ticket and there isn’t one and
they didn’t have one and they took all this and they put us through hell. That company.
And they didn’t even have the right to start this case.
261. Mr Justice Phillips : Right.
262. Mr Crawford : But as I say, there is no documentation, there is no accounts adduced to
verify any debt. In fact I’ve just prepared this, it’s a statement of truth and if Bradford &
Bingley’s solicitors are prepared to sign it, I’ll accept … excuse me Sir, could you sign that
and … the usher … I’ll accept that they’ve paid a fee. If they’re prepared to sign a
statement of truth to that fact. Is this gentleman representing the bank, could put his
signature to it then?
263. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, but this point was dealt with by His Honour Judge Godsmark.
264. Mr Crawford : No, he did not deal with it, he said he expected it to be paid, he never said
it was. There was no evidence that it was. This is a procedural matter, it’s not to be put to
one side as normally and say no merit. No merit seems to be a word that’s given out by the
Bar club that puts self-litigants in positions. If they actually want to tell the truth, Bradford
& Bingley, or their solicitors, I’ll accept…
265. Mr Justice Phillips : But what paragraph 58:
“Furthermore, proceedings are not invalidated by a failure to pay the fee.”
266. That’s … right or wrong, that’s what the judge decided.
267. Mr Crawford : Well, this is why we’re here to get things right. And the statement of
truth is important.
268. Mr Justice Phillips : The only thing that you can do is to … the only thing you can do is
appeal that decision isn’t it?
269. Mr Crawford : In the application:
“A step may only be taken using a possession claim …” this is 55BPD, “… payment of the
prescribed fee.”
270. So they cannot continue unless this … and it states in the CPR rules, which is … Practice
Directions.
“A step may only be taken using possession claims online… payment of the prescribed fee.”
271. This they … excepting hardship, are Bradford & Bingley and their solicitors claiming
hardship? And the overriding objective, they’ve failed in that as well, that’s another thing
that they always bring up, toward self-litigants, apart from restraining orders.
272. Mr Justice Phillips : Would you like to move to the … what you’re seeking from the
Land Registry?
273. Mr Crawford : Well with the Land Registry, I’ve informed them that there’s fraud taken
place and it is their duty to investigate that fraud. And it is their duty also to restore us back
to our position as the lawful … (takes instructions from colleague) my colleague is saying
that fraud initiates everything, ab initio, there’s no documents signed by us, we were not
notified by the Land Registry. If something unlawful is happening it is their duty to
reinstate until it’s proven otherwise.
274. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, so you have to help me, I haven’t seen anything that brings
the Land Registry here today.
275. Mr Crawford : I wasn’t expecting the Land Registry to be here today.
276. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m told Mr Justice Green made an order …
277. Mr Crawford : Yes, on the injunction that I applied for.
278. Mr Justice Phillips : Where do I find that?
279. Mr Crawford : You should have it in your … that was the first filings that I did before …
280. Mr West : It’s at page 42 of the bundle.
281. Mr Justice Phillips : 42 thank you.
282. Mr Crawford : Everything that I’ve said, I believe I can support; everything that Bradford
& Bingley and their solicitors have claimed they have produced no evidence. Produce the
evidence that there is a debt. Produce the evidence that this was started legally and
lawfully. Everything in my skeleton argument is there for them to answer. I know you say
they don’t have to answer it and the reason why they can’t … don’t answer it, is that they
can’t answer it.
283. Mr Justice Phillips : So, what…? Forgive me, this is a…
284. Mr Crawford : I want our position to be restored to where it was before.
285. Mr Justice Phillips : What application did you make against the Land Registry?
286. Mr Crawford : It was originally a claim for … it was an injunction to reinstate us, His
Honour Judge Green put the Land Registry’s name on it and that’s how they’re here,
because I said I want an injunction to stop them …
287. Mr Justice Phillips : So this was …
288. Mr Crawford : (inaudible).
289. Mr Justice Phillips : You came to this court, did you, on 18th August?
290. Mr Crawford : Yes.
291. Mr Justice Phillips : And you said you were making an application against the Land
Registry did you?
292. Mr Crawford : And Bradford & Bingley.
293. Mr Justice Phillips : But did you issue …
294. Mr Crawford : The claim.
295. Mr Justice Phillips : But did you issue any application?
296. Mr Crawford : Yes that’s the application that’s here today.
297. Mr Justice Phillips : But that’s … but that document appears to name Bradford &
Bingley, it doesn’t seem to name the Land Registry.
298. Mr Crawford : No it doesn’t. That’s about the only error that I believe I’ve committed
here. Because I was under the impression that the Land Registry should talk to Bradford &
Bingley and say why did you put this person’s name forward to be put on the document
when it’s blatantly false and our property has been taken, obviously fraudulently. Either
Bradford & Bingley produce the documentation; and that’s all I’m asking I’m not asking for
Acts and statutes and all sorts of, what you deal with every day, I am simply asking for
them to produce the evidence that they have been right to seize my home and the right to
violate myself and my family. Yes, we’re bringing a private prosecution as against
Bradford & Bingley, their CEOs, and all those involved. And there’ll be an application for
a committal as well. And anyone who’s involved with it, will also be named.
299. Mr Justice Phillips : Right. Anything else about the Land Registry?
300. Mr Crawford : Not the Land Registry no.
Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2
Moderator: ArthurWankspittle
-
letissier14
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 3:02 pm
Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2
I don't take sides, I read all the facts and then come to my own conclusions
-
letissier14
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 3:02 pm
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
301. (Discussions with advisers)
302. Mr Crawford : That’s the nub of the matter; to stop the Land Registry doing something
unlawfully and the judge listened to me and he was very kind and that’s why the injunction
to stop them doing what they were doing. We didn’t know that they’d sold the property at
that point. But they haven’t, so far as I’m concerned, it’s still my property, still my wife’s
property, you cannot sell stolen goods.
303. Male: Tell him there is a statutory compensation scheme (inaudible).
304. Mr Crawford : There’s a statutory … you probably heard.
305. Mr Justice Phillips : I know but…
306. Mr Crawford : Sorry?
307. Mr Justice Phillips : But you’re not seeking at the moment compensation from the Land
Registry are you?
308. Mr Crawford : No I just want to be put back in my position and it’s Bradford & Bingley
that’s entitled to do that, in fact not only do I want to be put back in my position, I want
Bradford & Bingley CEOs and their colleagues put in jail for what they’re doing.
309. (instructions from adviser)
310. Mr Crawford : There is no signed document … they frustrated the Contracts Act 1943.
311. Mr Justice Phillips : Where is there a frustrated contract here?
312. Mr Crawford : They won’t produce any documents. They won’t produce anything that I
have signed.
313. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, well. Okay. Yes, Mr Walder.
314. Mr Walder : My Lord, you will have seen my skeleton argument which effectively says,
by letter of 21st August, Mr Crawford served on the Nottingham office of the Land Registry
four documents; the High Court order made by Mr Justice Green on 18th August. Forgive
me I don’t have a copy of my learned friend’s bundle, but I understand that’s at page 42.
You will see the only named respondent in that order is Nottingham Land Registry. If there
is to be a proper respondent, it should be the Chief Land Registrar, but in any event it is
assumed that’s what’s meant. That order at paragraph 2 states:
“The applicant shall file and serve witness statements, application notice and this order on the
respondent.”
315. Thus, the respondent being named as Nottingham Land Registry, to comply with the order.
“Witness statements, application notice and the order shall be served on the Land Registry.”
316. That is, it is assumed, what the letter of 21st August sought to do. That letter included (a)
that order; (b) the claim form, in this claim number, which is a claim by Thomas Crawford
v Bradford & Bingley, and doesn’t name the Land Registry, the Chief Land Registrar or
anyone who could be associated with the Land Registry. The application notice which
again only names …
317. Mr Justice Phillips : So no originating process was served on you.
318. Mr Walder : No. Frankly, My Lord, the position is that the Chief Land Registrar doesn’t
know if he’s party to an application or not. It was considered there may be a typographical
error in the order, that had slipped under the net somehow, but the fact that it was
specifically served on the Nottingham office of the Land Registry by Mr Crawford shows,
in my submission, that he intended the Land Registry to be here, the Chief Land Registrar
to be here, to answer something, although what that thing is is not clear. There is no
application that has been served and no claim (inaudible) against the Chief Land Registrar
at present.
319. Mr Justice Phillips : Did Mr Justice Green make another order on that date in relation to
the Bradford & Bingley?
320. Mr Walder : My Lord, I don’t know is the answer.
321. Mr West : Not that we have seen.
322. Mr Justice Phillips : So is it possible that there’s an error in that order?
323. Mr Crawford : Maybe I’ll be able to clear that up. I spoke to His Honour Master Green
… Justice Green, we talked and discussed about who should appear in court and I had other
like minded villains to be named and he said well be wary in case you incur extra costs. At
that point is when he made the order. I picked it up and Bradford & Bingley was … had
(inaudible) at that time.
324. Mr Justice Phillips : And what sorry?
325. Mr Crawford : Bradford & Bingley is the one’s that were bringing the application and the
injunction.
326. Mr Justice Phillips : Right. But are you, just to be absolutely clear, are you making any
application against the Land Registry today?
327. Mr Crawford : Can my colleague just answer that, if that’s possible?
328. Mr Justice Phillips : Well he can tell you what he thinks.
329. (Conversation between Mr Crawford and his advisers)
330. Mr Crawford : This was also put in front of Master McLeod, who gave me permission to
further carry this application forward, although he said he didn’t really … I didn’t really
need it, but I put the argument to him as well on the same day.
331. Mr Justice Phillips : Forgive me I’m still unclear, are you making … are you seeking any
relief against the Land Registry? Are you making an application against them?
332. Mr Crawford : We will have to see the documents that the Land Registry … I have to see
the documents that the Land Registry acted upon, because I think they were misled as this
court has been misled by Bradford & Bingley solicitors.
333. Mr Justice Phillips : So can I ask you again, are you making any application against the
Land Registry today?
334. Mr Crawford : No. No, because they’ve been notified of serious issues.
335. Mr Justice Phillips : There you are Mr Walder.
336. Mr Walder : My Lord, an order has been made that has necessitated the attendance of the
Chief Land Registrar today, and there may be an application that flows from that.
337. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes, but at the moment, as I understand it, there’s no application
being made against you.
338. Mr Walder : My Lord, I’m grateful.
(Judgment transcribed separately)
339. Mr West : Now My Lord that then leads on the question of my application for a civil
restraint order.
340. Mr Justice Phillips : Well let’s deal first of all with the question of a consequential matter
as a result of that, my judgment. First of all the application is dismissed the claim is
dismissed. Are there any consequential applications in relation to that?
341. Mr West : 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 …
342. Mr Justice Phillips : So you have a balance on account don’t you?
343. Mr West : Yes. The reason for that being that the contractual indemnity is set out in the
mortgage conditions at pages 130 and 131 of the bundle and so in the … as is usual in
mortgage possession proceedings I make no application because I would simply add them
to the outstanding mortgage debt so I …
344. Mr Justice Phillips : (inaudible) sold the property?
345. Mr West : Yes.
346. Mr Justice Phillips : And you received, you recovered that there was a surplus was there?
347. Mr West : No there was a shortfall.
348. Mr Justice Phillips : There’s a shortfall?
349. Mr West : Yes. So there is, there is still a potential action open to the Bradford and
Bingley on the covenants for repayment.
350. Mr Justice Phillips : I see.
351. Mr West : Because there is still an outstanding debt on the covenants for repayment … it
is potentially open to the Bradford and Bingley to add any additional (inaudible) …
352. Mr Justice Phillips : Well the practical matter is you’re not applying for costs today.
353. Mr Crawford : Sir could I interject here?
354. Mr Justice Phillips : Just one moment.
355. Mr Crawford : This man is talking, he’s misleading the court.
356. Mr Justice Phillips : Well, let’s do one at a time.
357. Mr Crawford : Okay.
358. Mr Justice Phillips : You’ll have your say. Mr Walder you want to make an application
for costs?
359. Mr Walder : My Lord yes. I do apply for the Land Registry to have their costs to be
assessed if not agreed.
360. Mr Justice Phillips : Have you produced a schedule?
361. Mr Walder : My Lord no.
362. Mr Justice Phillips : Why not?
363. Mr Walder : Well My Lord it was entirely unclear exactly what this application was
about, what it related to, what works would be necessary and therefore my attendance is in
fact here is to simply to understand what this order is, the documents that were served with
it which were served by Mr Crawford led to … frankly My Lord it wasn’t even clear
whether the Land Registry were a party to this action, although they’re named in the …
364. Mr Justice Phillips : I understand all of that but what would that not have stopped you
putting in a summary statement of costs to today in the … your costs are your costs.
365. Mr Walder : My Lord yes that’s correct, My Lord it simply wasn’t done, the frank reason
was it wasn’t clear whether this would a matter that arose today or not.
366. Mr Justice Phillips : But you know that if you’re going to ask for your costs you have to
provide a summary assessment.
367. Mr Walder : My Lord only if you’re going to assess them do I have to provide a
summary schedule.
368. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes but costs of anything under a day should be assessed.
369. Mr Walder : My Lord I …
370. Mr Justice Phillips : And that’s why you should serve a schedule.
371. Mr Walder : My Lord yes.
372. Mr Justice Phillips : So what are you inviting me to do order a detailed assessment of
your costs?
373. Mr Walder : To be assessed if not agreed My Lord yes.
374. Mr Justice Phillips : Did you … did you correspond with Mr Crawford about what was
sought?
375. Mr Walder : My Lord can I just take some instructions on that, I think I know the answer
to that, can I just take some instructions. My Lord the answer to that question is no but I
will invite Your Lordship just to look at the timescale of all of this, this letter was sent on
21st August, and as Your Lordship has said we are now at the 3rd September.
376. Mr Justice Phillips : But why couldn’t you have written to ask him whether or not …
whether or not he’s making an application against you?
377. Mr Walder : Well My Lord by the time this letter which is sent to the Land Registry
Nottingham office is dealt with, processed, sent to the treasury solicitor for action and I’m
instructed, we have a period of 10, well 10 days, not even that in working days, and that’s
assumed that it arrived on the day the letter’s sent. My Lord there simply wasn’t time
practically.
378. Mr Justice Phillips : I don’t accept that Mr Walder, you had time to draft the skeleton, no
I’m sorry I’m not prepared to order you … I shall explain. Mr Walder asked for the Land
Registry’s costs, no original (inaudible) process was issued against them and no application
was served on them, it seems to me that they will have been entitled to take the view that
they need not attend, or certainly to write to the court saying that they did not understand
that they need attend. They didn’t write to Mr Crawford seeking any clarification to the
position. It’s quite possible I think that the order sent to them was by error. The Land
Registry attended to day, no application was made against them, they have not produced a
costs schedule of their costs. Whilst I have some sympathy for their position given that they
received an order of the court which appears to indicate there would be a hearing against
them today I think it is not appropriate to make an order for costs. No one’s seeking an
order so … Bradford and Bingley aren’t seeking an order for costs against you and I’ve
refused an order to the Land Registry, is there anything else you want to say about that?
379. (Instructions to Mr Crawford from his colleague)
380. Mr Crawford : So first of all … you haven’t seen a correct warrant, I haven’t seen a
correct warrant, they say that there’s a shortfall, they … I’ll give you the document in …
381. Mr Justice Phillips : You’re re-arguing the matter …
382. Mr Crawford : No, no, this isn’t …
383. Mr Justice Phillips : … I’ve already decided that your application fails and your claim
should be dismissed.
384. Mr Crawford : Okay.
385. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m afraid we can’t reargue the point.
386. Mr Crawford : This isn’t arguing, he just stated that there was a shortfall in the sale, now
that shortfall they were asking £43,000, you’ve got the figures there …
387. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
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 with no accounts once
again, they are acting as a fraudulent company.
389. Mr Justice Phillips : Right I can’t do anything about that today ….
390. Mr Crawford : But you see I’m just pointing out his error or he’s misleading the court
about there being a shortfall isn’t true.
391. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, well that may have to be decided on another occasion if and
when they come after you for the shortfall. Is there anything else that you want to … any
other applications?
392. (Instructions to Mr Crawford from his colleague)
393. Mr Justice Phillips : Forgive me we’re not going to … we’re not going to further debate
the matter, I’ve given my judgment. If you, if you wish to you can ask for permission to
appeal my judgment.
394. Mr Crawford : No we’re not asking for …
395. Mr Justice Phillips : Let Mr Thompson speak, erm… Mr Crawford, speak for himself.
396. Mr Crawford : We’re not asking at this point for an appeal, we …
397. Mr Justice Phillips : You’re not asking for permission to appeal?
398. Mr Crawford : No.
399. Mr Justice Phillips : Right.
400. Mr Crawford : We’ve already got systems in place to go down the criminal route against
the various bodies involved involved in respect of the prosecution.
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, there’s an application now by the Bradford
and Bingley for a civil restraint order.
402. Mr Crawford : Just before you proceed could I have a transcript of this?
403. Mr Justice Phillips : Well you can always order a transcript yourself, if you’re asking me
to order a transcript at public expense then I’m afraid I’m not prepared to do that.
404. Mr Crawford : Okay.
405. Mr Justice Phillips : If that can be recorded in the order as well. Mr West will you draft
an order from that application?
406. Mr West : My Lord yes.
407. Mr Justice Phillips : It’s quite straightforward.
408. Mr West : Yes.
409. Mr Justice Phillips : And if you can circulate it, I don’t know whether or not you’re able
to let Mr Crawford have it …
410. Mr West : Yes.
411. Mr Justice Phillips : … as well as Mr Walder.
412. Mr West : Yes.
413. Mr Justice Phillips : Right now the application for the civil restraint order. I have … I’m
not sure there’s anything else that you need to say about that. I’ve read your skeleton, I’ve
plainly dealt with two further totally without merit aspects of the matter.
414. Mr West : Yes.
415. Mr Justice Phillips : I just understand the order … the other thing you refer to are the
order of Deputy District Judge Macmillan …
416. Mr West : No, District Judge Macmillan.
417. Mr Justice Phillips : Sorry District Judge Macmillan.
418. Mr West : Which is the 16th May 2014 at page 95 of the bundle, and it’s specifically
recited at paragraph four, that the statements of case were totally without merit. Paragraph
two reciting that the claimant ordered the claim is struck out.
419. Mr Justice Phillips : Which claim … which claim is this?
420. Mr West : Now this was a claim brought by Mr and Mrs Crawford …
421. Mr Crawford : All the claims were by Mr Crawford, I note this in their skeleton they
keep on referring to Mrs Crawford, that is untrue and misleading the court.
422. Mr West : Right. Mr Crawford says the position by him alone, that was a set of
proceedings issued in the Nottingham County Court on 27th September 2013 which appears
at page 84 of the bundle.
423. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
424. Mr West : And you see that what it required was that the Bradford and Bingley would
remove their legal charge from the property, so those proceedings were struck out by
District Judge (inaudible) on 16th May 2014.
425. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
426. Mr West : Then there was a further claim form issued, this time by Mr and Mrs Crawford
on 21st July 2015 seeking an injunction to stop the sale or destruction of goods and chattels.
427. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
428. Mr West : Now that appears at page 112 and 113 of the bundle.
429. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
430. Mr West : And that was dismissed on next day by His Honour Judge Owen QC at page
98.
431. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
432. Mr West : And again you see a paragraph to be specifically recited it said the application
was totally without merit.
433. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
434. Mr West : Now My Lord the only thing that I would add was that, as you will have seen
from the claim form, the stamp on the claim form on page one of the bundles, the matter
appears to us that it was assigned to Master McCleod. You’ll be aware of course that
Master McLeod could only make a limited civil restraint order which is why we only sought
a limited civil restraint order …
435. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
436. Mr West : … in the application notice.
437. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
438. Mr West : Your Lordship may take the view in light of what has been said this morning
the fact that there are further applications without merit that have been made (inaudible) …
439. Mr Justice Phillips : The appropriate order here would be an extended.
440. Mr West : Yes. And that is what I seek.
441. Mr Justice Phillips : May I just … 95 and 98 are, there’s also an order at 111.
442. Mr West : Ah that is a duplication, I’m sorry, of page 95.
443. Mr Justice Phillips : Duplication of 95?
444. Mr West : Yes. So it’s not a separate order.
445. Mr Justice Phillips : So that’s a claim to set aside the … to have the mortgage set aside?
446. Mr West : Yes.
447. Mr Justice Phillips : And the one at 98 is a claim.
448. Mr West : That was for injunctive relief which is at pages 112 to 113 to stop the sale or
the destruction of the goods and chattels from the property.
449. Mr Justice Phillips : Thank you. Yes, now Mr Crawford you understand the application
that’s being made is for a civil restraint order against you. You mentioned them earlier so
you’re plainly familiar with the concept of a civil restraint order. And you’ve seen Mr ….
450. Mr Crawford : I’m aware of it …
451. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
452. Mr Crawford : … recently, and this application is the same one as you have and they sign
it, did they sign this application as a statement of truth? Is this their honesty been brought
into (inaudible) once again? There is no signature on the statement of truth. They didn’t
sign this application. This is a …
453. Mr Justice Phillips : Right has this … has this application been …
454. Mr West : My Lord there’s a signed statement of truth with the witness statement.
455. Mr Crawford : But that isn’t this.
456. Mr Justice Phillips : Any … has the application notice been sealed and the fee paid?
457. Mr West : Yes.
458. Mr Justice Phillips : Have you got that?
459. Mr Crawford : I haven’t got it.
460. Mr West : We haven’t got it back from the court yet apparently.
461. Mr Justice Phillips : Right. Stella is that possible to check on the system? Is it possible to
check if this application notice has been sealed?
462. Mr West : There we are.
463. Mr Justice Phillips : Thank you very much. There we are Mr Crawford, perhaps Mr
Crawford can see that.
464. Mr Crawford : Should that have been filed and served on me?
465. Mr Justice Phillips : Well you can serve with it, you’ve been served with a copy of the
application notice haven’t you?
466. Mr Crawford : I was told to have it sealed and then …
467. Mr Justice Phillips : Mr, I’m sorry Mr Crawford, it’s just not the way things work. Yes
the court has to be satisfied …
468. Mr Crawford : Yeah, okay.
469. Mr Justice Phillips : … that the fees have been paid …
470. Mr Crawford : And it’s …
471. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m afraid …
472. Mr Crawford : … still not signed.
473. Mr Justice Phillips : It doesn’t matter that … that relates to the … what they’re relying
upon at 10 is the attached witnesses statements, they don’t need to serve a statement of truth
under that aspect because its … that’s the evidence. I’m afraid these attempts to …
474. Mr Crawford : No its not attempts, it’s… I followed the order and I followed Judge
Greens order to the letter and …
475. Mr Justice Phillips : Shall we … shall we deal with the merits of the matter …
476. Mr Crawford : Okay.
477. Mr Justice Phillips : … Mr Crawford rather than looking at, what’s with respect are …
478. Mr Crawford : Procedural matters.
479. Mr Justice Phillips : Well they’re not just procedural but they are meritless because the
application has been made, you received it and it has been stamped and a fee has been paid.
480. Mr Crawford : Yeah but we’ve just received that now.
481. Mr Justice Phillips : But why does that … why does that matter to you in any way?
482. Mr Crawford : Because I …
483. Mr Justice Phillips : Well what are you …
484. Mr Crawford : … I imagined that they sent us Sir (inaudible) …
485. Mr Justice Phillips : Are you suggesting … are you suggesting that the fact that you
haven’t had a sealed …
486. Mr Crawford : No.
487. Mr Justice Phillips : … copy application notice in anyway prejudices your ability to
respond to it?
488. Mr Crawford : Yes because I didn’t think that was a document from the court. This was a
document from them. I followed Judge Green’s orders everything should be sealed and
then delivered, they didn’t do that. But setting that aside they didn’t sign it either, they are
trying at this point here to also take my wife into these proceedings and … I haven’t had the
chance to investigate exactly what this application is all about, I was basically bushwhacked
again.
489. (Discussion with colleague)
490. Mr Crawford : As my friend here said I have … I should have the opportunity to point by
point with this, this application that … putting that aside just now I put several claims in,
the first one quite correctly pointed out that Bradford and Bingley had a unlawful claim on
the property. Number two the next claim was for my chattels, that is not part of this. Once
again they were going to destroy my chattels and yet Judge Owen dismissed it. I asked him
… in fact I said, I pointed out the law to him and he told me, and unfortunately I didn’t, I
should’ve got the transcript, he said the law doesn’t matter in this case.
491. Mr Justice Phillips : But did you appeal either of those orders?
492. Mr Crawford : No I didn’t appeal that, we managed to get some of our chattels back, and
then I’ve got this case, the only one that my wife got involved with was to save her
property, her chattels. I notice that they drag my wife into nearly every paragraph that they
can in their skeleton argument and I can see the reason why because they want to make her
also part of this restraining order which is once again malicious.
493. (Takes instructions from his adviser)
494. So basically I find that the law society uses this particular tool against persons, litigants in
person. If the law society went by their own rules I don’t think there’d be a law practice
going if every one that they bring to court they win, but they don’t … they lose as many on
either side, so this is a tool aimed at a litigant in person. We have the right to defend
ourselves if we think we are being done wrong.
495. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes but you’ll appreciate there’s nothing a civil restraint order stops
you from making applications, it just means you first of all have to get permission of a
judge.
496. Mr Crawford : Yes, and this is the … this is the problem, the law society … why should
we be put in this position where there’s also another added to this application that …
497. (Discussion with his advisers)
498. Mr Crawford : … there is an extra little threat in this, there’s an extra little threat in this,
where it says;
“Further given the litigation nature of the claimant and there’s severe security
risks”.
499. Well total nonsense again.
“… the defendant would …”
500. A penal notice, now can you explain to me what they’re trying to gain by a penal notice of
myself? I do not understand what they mean by a penal notice.
501. Mr Justice Phillips : Well the way that a civil restraint order works is that it requires you
to seek permission from a named judge before making any claims or applications in relation
to the matter in question.
502. Mr Crawford : (inaudible).
503. Mr Justice Phillips : So … and that, and because the court’s on notice of that I don’t think
a penal notice is necessary and I won’t be ordering a penal notice for that.
504. Mr Crawford : Okay, I didn’t know what it actually meant that’s why I was …
505. Mr Justice Phillips : Well the … is there anything you want to say about the substantive
aspects of it, and plainly you addressed me on a couple of them but …
506. Mr Crawford : Mhmm.
507. Mr Justice Phillips : … it does appear here Mr Crawford as though you’ve made a number
of claims which have been dismissed as totally without merit.
508. Mr Crawford : Its … I went down the facts of the case today, and that is where …
509. Mr Justice Phillips : And you’ve done so, if I may say so, you’ve done so very
courteously and with no little skill and I certainly am not suggesting today in anyway that
what you have done has been …
510. Mr Crawford : It’s not malicious in anyway.
511. Mr Justice Phillips : … has been, that you have in anyway behaved improperly.
512. Mr Crawford : Okay.
513. Mr Justice Phillips : It’s just the merit of your application which is in question. So unless
you want to say anything further I will give a further judgment in relation to this
application?
514. Mr Crawford : Okay. I will feel that the court will bind my hands when I find further
evidence to bring a case. I note the reluctance of every judge, once this has been put on a
person to restrict their access to court and they’re very, very seldom lifted, and in my case
because of the publicity, because of the story behind it, they will certainly not give me
access to court.
515. Mr Justice Phillips : Well a judge, a judge obviously, it’s a … the obstacle you have to
surmount is persuading the court that you have a proper application to make, and if you
haven’t got a proper application to make then it’s in everybody’s interests that you don’t
make it.
516. Mr Crawford : Yeah.
517. Mr Justice Phillips : It doesn’t stop you defending yourself, it stops you making
applications. Well I think Mr Ebert is probably familiar with civil restraint orders.
518. Mr Ebert : I am very familiar, that’s the reason I can assist him. That’s illegal. He is
entitled to put his defence.
519. Mr Justice Phillips : Is there anything else you want to add on the substance of it?
520. Mr Crawford : No that’s it, thank you for listening. Thank you.
(Judgment on civil restraint order transcribed separately)
521. Mr Crawford : Thank you. The penal you never mentioned?
522. Mr Justice Phillips : Well I’ve indicated that I wasn’t minded, I’ll just hear … I’ll hear
from Mr West if he wants to say anything about that, but my understanding about the way a
civil restraint order really operates is that it should be … there is a central list of civil
restraint orders.
523. Mr West : Yes there is.
524. Mr Justice Phillips : And the courts, the relevant court should be aware of it …
525. Mr West : Yes.
526. Mr Justice Phillips : … and the way it operates really is, is its not so much a restriction on
what the defendant… it’s almost like a freezing order, it’s the third parties who know about
it that matter.
527. Mr West : Yes.
528. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m very reluctant to put a penal notice on it, I don’t think I … I’m
not sure I’ve seen a penal notice on civil restraint orders?
529. Mr West : The answer is that actually the printed … the printed form in 19A pre supposes
that there will be one.
530. Mr Justice Phillips : Does it, right.
531. Mr West : But if you’re content to proceed on the basis that there isn’t to be one in these
circumstances so be it. I can hand up a copy.
532. Mr Justice Phillips : Can I see? As I say I just can’t remember whether they had one or
not. Thank you.
533. Mr West : Though of course Your Lordship is not bound by the pre printed form …
534. Mr Justice Phillips : No.
535. Mr West : … if you take the view, if you think in the circumstances it would sufficient to
make the order without that notice attached, of course one can strike it through.
536. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
537. Mr West : The only other two minor points that I would raise as to the form of the order,
first of all Your Lordship referred to the fact of a judge to be identified.
538. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
539. Mr West : Now certainly in the chancery division the practice certainly when a Master
makes a restraint order is that at the foot of the page the name of the Master is recited or in
the alternative a Master is signed by the Chief Master in the absence of the named Master.
Your Lordship may take the view that to reserve the matter to yourself, for all sorts of
obvious reasons would not be a sensible way of proceeding …
540. Mr Justice Phillips : No.
541. Mr West : … therefore perhaps if one strikes through the name of the judge or if
unavailable one simply says the application’s judge for the time being of the Queens Bench
Division.
542. Mr Justice Phillips : I’ll think about that.
543. Mr West : Yes.
544. Mr Justice Phillips : I think … I think the more appropriate thing is for me to draft
extended restraint order and I’m not going to include a penal notice. It may be that the
appropriate person to name is the judge in charge of the Queens Bench list.
545. Mr West : Yes.
546. Mr Justice Phillips : Or a judge nominated by him.
547. Mr West : Or nominated by him yes.
548. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m not sure … Stella what’s the … they normally do here with the
restraint orders? Okay, thanks. I’ll probably put any High Court Judge of the Queens
Bench Division.
549. Mr West : Yes.
550. Mr Justice Phillips : And one of the points about naming any particular of the Queens
Bench Division …
551. Mr West : Of course.
552. Mr Justice Phillips : … Judges is that they not be here.
553. Mr West : They may be elsewhere at the time.
554. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
555. Mr West : The other matter that I should specifically raise with you is the question of time
limit. That you see appears over the page at the top of page two.
556. Mr Justice Phillips : Well I would’ve thought two years is the appropriate figure.
557. Mr West : Because under the terms of the rules the order will be made for a specified
period not exceeding two years.
558. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes well two years is the appropriate figure.
559. Mr West : Yes My Lord.
560. Mr Justice Phillips : Very well, anything you want to say about that?
561. Mr Crawford : You say I’m restricted to certain courts. What about courts that’s higher
than this court, Supreme Court?
562. Mr Justice Phillips : No it doesn’t stop you in the Court of Appeal or the High … or the
Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
563. Mr Crawford : So I’m not … I’m not restricted to those areas. Then I should be seeing
you there Sir.
564. Mr Justice Phillips : Right so Mr West if you can draft the order from …
565. Mr West : Yes.
566. Mr Justice Phillips : … the other applications, I will draft an extended civil restraint order
and that probably concludes our business for today.
567. Mr Walder: My Lord just before, can I just check how the position of the Land Registry
is going to be recorded in the order that my learned friend drafts …
568. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
569. Mr Walder : Because it’s still unclear actually if the Land Registry were party to the
application or it was simply an error that drew us here, now …
570. Mr Justice Phillips : Well it seems to me whether it’s an error or not you, did not ... there
was no application against you, written or oral.
571. Mr Walder : So were not a respondent technically.
572. Mr Justice Phillips : So you’re not a respondent.
573. Mr Walder : Could it be recorded in a pre amble then the Land Registry was not …
574. Mr Justice Phillips : Well I think it should simply say that upon the Land Registry
attending but not being subject to any application.
575. Mr Walder : I’m grateful My Lord.
576. Mr Justice Phillips : I think that’s all, all one can say.
577. Mr Walder : I’m grateful.
578. Mr Justice Phillips : Is there anything else? In which case I …
579. Mr Crawford : So sorry, we respond (inaudible) on a point which is probably winging its
way through the courts to the Land Registry. It’s… they’ve got a committee of three very
learned persons that sit in judgment of the Land Registry’s behaviour regarding this, will
the restraining order be also on that?
580. Mr Justice Phillips : Well I don’t think it … I don’t think a Civil Restraint order is going
to stop you dealing with anything other than courts.
581. Mr Crawford : But you did say it touched on.
582. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes but its … but its applications in any courts specified below and
the courts specified below to be clear will be the High Court or any County Court.
583. Mr Crawford : Yeah, okay, thank you Sir.
584. Mr Justice Phillips : Alright. Thank you all very much.
End of transcription
We hereby certify that this is a verbatim transcript of the hearing heard on 3rd September
2015.
Compril Limited
302. Mr Crawford : That’s the nub of the matter; to stop the Land Registry doing something
unlawfully and the judge listened to me and he was very kind and that’s why the injunction
to stop them doing what they were doing. We didn’t know that they’d sold the property at
that point. But they haven’t, so far as I’m concerned, it’s still my property, still my wife’s
property, you cannot sell stolen goods.
303. Male: Tell him there is a statutory compensation scheme (inaudible).
304. Mr Crawford : There’s a statutory … you probably heard.
305. Mr Justice Phillips : I know but…
306. Mr Crawford : Sorry?
307. Mr Justice Phillips : But you’re not seeking at the moment compensation from the Land
Registry are you?
308. Mr Crawford : No I just want to be put back in my position and it’s Bradford & Bingley
that’s entitled to do that, in fact not only do I want to be put back in my position, I want
Bradford & Bingley CEOs and their colleagues put in jail for what they’re doing.
309. (instructions from adviser)
310. Mr Crawford : There is no signed document … they frustrated the Contracts Act 1943.
311. Mr Justice Phillips : Where is there a frustrated contract here?
312. Mr Crawford : They won’t produce any documents. They won’t produce anything that I
have signed.
313. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, well. Okay. Yes, Mr Walder.
314. Mr Walder : My Lord, you will have seen my skeleton argument which effectively says,
by letter of 21st August, Mr Crawford served on the Nottingham office of the Land Registry
four documents; the High Court order made by Mr Justice Green on 18th August. Forgive
me I don’t have a copy of my learned friend’s bundle, but I understand that’s at page 42.
You will see the only named respondent in that order is Nottingham Land Registry. If there
is to be a proper respondent, it should be the Chief Land Registrar, but in any event it is
assumed that’s what’s meant. That order at paragraph 2 states:
“The applicant shall file and serve witness statements, application notice and this order on the
respondent.”
315. Thus, the respondent being named as Nottingham Land Registry, to comply with the order.
“Witness statements, application notice and the order shall be served on the Land Registry.”
316. That is, it is assumed, what the letter of 21st August sought to do. That letter included (a)
that order; (b) the claim form, in this claim number, which is a claim by Thomas Crawford
v Bradford & Bingley, and doesn’t name the Land Registry, the Chief Land Registrar or
anyone who could be associated with the Land Registry. The application notice which
again only names …
317. Mr Justice Phillips : So no originating process was served on you.
318. Mr Walder : No. Frankly, My Lord, the position is that the Chief Land Registrar doesn’t
know if he’s party to an application or not. It was considered there may be a typographical
error in the order, that had slipped under the net somehow, but the fact that it was
specifically served on the Nottingham office of the Land Registry by Mr Crawford shows,
in my submission, that he intended the Land Registry to be here, the Chief Land Registrar
to be here, to answer something, although what that thing is is not clear. There is no
application that has been served and no claim (inaudible) against the Chief Land Registrar
at present.
319. Mr Justice Phillips : Did Mr Justice Green make another order on that date in relation to
the Bradford & Bingley?
320. Mr Walder : My Lord, I don’t know is the answer.
321. Mr West : Not that we have seen.
322. Mr Justice Phillips : So is it possible that there’s an error in that order?
323. Mr Crawford : Maybe I’ll be able to clear that up. I spoke to His Honour Master Green
… Justice Green, we talked and discussed about who should appear in court and I had other
like minded villains to be named and he said well be wary in case you incur extra costs. At
that point is when he made the order. I picked it up and Bradford & Bingley was … had
(inaudible) at that time.
324. Mr Justice Phillips : And what sorry?
325. Mr Crawford : Bradford & Bingley is the one’s that were bringing the application and the
injunction.
326. Mr Justice Phillips : Right. But are you, just to be absolutely clear, are you making any
application against the Land Registry today?
327. Mr Crawford : Can my colleague just answer that, if that’s possible?
328. Mr Justice Phillips : Well he can tell you what he thinks.
329. (Conversation between Mr Crawford and his advisers)
330. Mr Crawford : This was also put in front of Master McLeod, who gave me permission to
further carry this application forward, although he said he didn’t really … I didn’t really
need it, but I put the argument to him as well on the same day.
331. Mr Justice Phillips : Forgive me I’m still unclear, are you making … are you seeking any
relief against the Land Registry? Are you making an application against them?
332. Mr Crawford : We will have to see the documents that the Land Registry … I have to see
the documents that the Land Registry acted upon, because I think they were misled as this
court has been misled by Bradford & Bingley solicitors.
333. Mr Justice Phillips : So can I ask you again, are you making any application against the
Land Registry today?
334. Mr Crawford : No. No, because they’ve been notified of serious issues.
335. Mr Justice Phillips : There you are Mr Walder.
336. Mr Walder : My Lord, an order has been made that has necessitated the attendance of the
Chief Land Registrar today, and there may be an application that flows from that.
337. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes, but at the moment, as I understand it, there’s no application
being made against you.
338. Mr Walder : My Lord, I’m grateful.
(Judgment transcribed separately)
339. Mr West : Now My Lord that then leads on the question of my application for a civil
restraint order.
340. Mr Justice Phillips : Well let’s deal first of all with the question of a consequential matter
as a result of that, my judgment. First of all the application is dismissed the claim is
dismissed. Are there any consequential applications in relation to that?
341. Mr West : 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 …
342. Mr Justice Phillips : So you have a balance on account don’t you?
343. Mr West : Yes. The reason for that being that the contractual indemnity is set out in the
mortgage conditions at pages 130 and 131 of the bundle and so in the … as is usual in
mortgage possession proceedings I make no application because I would simply add them
to the outstanding mortgage debt so I …
344. Mr Justice Phillips : (inaudible) sold the property?
345. Mr West : Yes.
346. Mr Justice Phillips : And you received, you recovered that there was a surplus was there?
347. Mr West : No there was a shortfall.
348. Mr Justice Phillips : There’s a shortfall?
349. Mr West : Yes. So there is, there is still a potential action open to the Bradford and
Bingley on the covenants for repayment.
350. Mr Justice Phillips : I see.
351. Mr West : Because there is still an outstanding debt on the covenants for repayment … it
is potentially open to the Bradford and Bingley to add any additional (inaudible) …
352. Mr Justice Phillips : Well the practical matter is you’re not applying for costs today.
353. Mr Crawford : Sir could I interject here?
354. Mr Justice Phillips : Just one moment.
355. Mr Crawford : This man is talking, he’s misleading the court.
356. Mr Justice Phillips : Well, let’s do one at a time.
357. Mr Crawford : Okay.
358. Mr Justice Phillips : You’ll have your say. Mr Walder you want to make an application
for costs?
359. Mr Walder : My Lord yes. I do apply for the Land Registry to have their costs to be
assessed if not agreed.
360. Mr Justice Phillips : Have you produced a schedule?
361. Mr Walder : My Lord no.
362. Mr Justice Phillips : Why not?
363. Mr Walder : Well My Lord it was entirely unclear exactly what this application was
about, what it related to, what works would be necessary and therefore my attendance is in
fact here is to simply to understand what this order is, the documents that were served with
it which were served by Mr Crawford led to … frankly My Lord it wasn’t even clear
whether the Land Registry were a party to this action, although they’re named in the …
364. Mr Justice Phillips : I understand all of that but what would that not have stopped you
putting in a summary statement of costs to today in the … your costs are your costs.
365. Mr Walder : My Lord yes that’s correct, My Lord it simply wasn’t done, the frank reason
was it wasn’t clear whether this would a matter that arose today or not.
366. Mr Justice Phillips : But you know that if you’re going to ask for your costs you have to
provide a summary assessment.
367. Mr Walder : My Lord only if you’re going to assess them do I have to provide a
summary schedule.
368. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes but costs of anything under a day should be assessed.
369. Mr Walder : My Lord I …
370. Mr Justice Phillips : And that’s why you should serve a schedule.
371. Mr Walder : My Lord yes.
372. Mr Justice Phillips : So what are you inviting me to do order a detailed assessment of
your costs?
373. Mr Walder : To be assessed if not agreed My Lord yes.
374. Mr Justice Phillips : Did you … did you correspond with Mr Crawford about what was
sought?
375. Mr Walder : My Lord can I just take some instructions on that, I think I know the answer
to that, can I just take some instructions. My Lord the answer to that question is no but I
will invite Your Lordship just to look at the timescale of all of this, this letter was sent on
21st August, and as Your Lordship has said we are now at the 3rd September.
376. Mr Justice Phillips : But why couldn’t you have written to ask him whether or not …
whether or not he’s making an application against you?
377. Mr Walder : Well My Lord by the time this letter which is sent to the Land Registry
Nottingham office is dealt with, processed, sent to the treasury solicitor for action and I’m
instructed, we have a period of 10, well 10 days, not even that in working days, and that’s
assumed that it arrived on the day the letter’s sent. My Lord there simply wasn’t time
practically.
378. Mr Justice Phillips : I don’t accept that Mr Walder, you had time to draft the skeleton, no
I’m sorry I’m not prepared to order you … I shall explain. Mr Walder asked for the Land
Registry’s costs, no original (inaudible) process was issued against them and no application
was served on them, it seems to me that they will have been entitled to take the view that
they need not attend, or certainly to write to the court saying that they did not understand
that they need attend. They didn’t write to Mr Crawford seeking any clarification to the
position. It’s quite possible I think that the order sent to them was by error. The Land
Registry attended to day, no application was made against them, they have not produced a
costs schedule of their costs. Whilst I have some sympathy for their position given that they
received an order of the court which appears to indicate there would be a hearing against
them today I think it is not appropriate to make an order for costs. No one’s seeking an
order so … Bradford and Bingley aren’t seeking an order for costs against you and I’ve
refused an order to the Land Registry, is there anything else you want to say about that?
379. (Instructions to Mr Crawford from his colleague)
380. Mr Crawford : So first of all … you haven’t seen a correct warrant, I haven’t seen a
correct warrant, they say that there’s a shortfall, they … I’ll give you the document in …
381. Mr Justice Phillips : You’re re-arguing the matter …
382. Mr Crawford : No, no, this isn’t …
383. Mr Justice Phillips : … I’ve already decided that your application fails and your claim
should be dismissed.
384. Mr Crawford : Okay.
385. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m afraid we can’t reargue the point.
386. Mr Crawford : This isn’t arguing, he just stated that there was a shortfall in the sale, now
that shortfall they were asking £43,000, you’ve got the figures there …
387. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
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 with no accounts once
again, they are acting as a fraudulent company.
389. Mr Justice Phillips : Right I can’t do anything about that today ….
390. Mr Crawford : But you see I’m just pointing out his error or he’s misleading the court
about there being a shortfall isn’t true.
391. Mr Justice Phillips : Right, well that may have to be decided on another occasion if and
when they come after you for the shortfall. Is there anything else that you want to … any
other applications?
392. (Instructions to Mr Crawford from his colleague)
393. Mr Justice Phillips : Forgive me we’re not going to … we’re not going to further debate
the matter, I’ve given my judgment. If you, if you wish to you can ask for permission to
appeal my judgment.
394. Mr Crawford : No we’re not asking for …
395. Mr Justice Phillips : Let Mr Thompson speak, erm… Mr Crawford, speak for himself.
396. Mr Crawford : We’re not asking at this point for an appeal, we …
397. Mr Justice Phillips : You’re not asking for permission to appeal?
398. Mr Crawford : No.
399. Mr Justice Phillips : Right.
400. Mr Crawford : We’ve already got systems in place to go down the criminal route against
the various bodies involved involved in respect of the prosecution.
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, there’s an application now by the Bradford
and Bingley for a civil restraint order.
402. Mr Crawford : Just before you proceed could I have a transcript of this?
403. Mr Justice Phillips : Well you can always order a transcript yourself, if you’re asking me
to order a transcript at public expense then I’m afraid I’m not prepared to do that.
404. Mr Crawford : Okay.
405. Mr Justice Phillips : If that can be recorded in the order as well. Mr West will you draft
an order from that application?
406. Mr West : My Lord yes.
407. Mr Justice Phillips : It’s quite straightforward.
408. Mr West : Yes.
409. Mr Justice Phillips : And if you can circulate it, I don’t know whether or not you’re able
to let Mr Crawford have it …
410. Mr West : Yes.
411. Mr Justice Phillips : … as well as Mr Walder.
412. Mr West : Yes.
413. Mr Justice Phillips : Right now the application for the civil restraint order. I have … I’m
not sure there’s anything else that you need to say about that. I’ve read your skeleton, I’ve
plainly dealt with two further totally without merit aspects of the matter.
414. Mr West : Yes.
415. Mr Justice Phillips : I just understand the order … the other thing you refer to are the
order of Deputy District Judge Macmillan …
416. Mr West : No, District Judge Macmillan.
417. Mr Justice Phillips : Sorry District Judge Macmillan.
418. Mr West : Which is the 16th May 2014 at page 95 of the bundle, and it’s specifically
recited at paragraph four, that the statements of case were totally without merit. Paragraph
two reciting that the claimant ordered the claim is struck out.
419. Mr Justice Phillips : Which claim … which claim is this?
420. Mr West : Now this was a claim brought by Mr and Mrs Crawford …
421. Mr Crawford : All the claims were by Mr Crawford, I note this in their skeleton they
keep on referring to Mrs Crawford, that is untrue and misleading the court.
422. Mr West : Right. Mr Crawford says the position by him alone, that was a set of
proceedings issued in the Nottingham County Court on 27th September 2013 which appears
at page 84 of the bundle.
423. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
424. Mr West : And you see that what it required was that the Bradford and Bingley would
remove their legal charge from the property, so those proceedings were struck out by
District Judge (inaudible) on 16th May 2014.
425. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
426. Mr West : Then there was a further claim form issued, this time by Mr and Mrs Crawford
on 21st July 2015 seeking an injunction to stop the sale or destruction of goods and chattels.
427. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
428. Mr West : Now that appears at page 112 and 113 of the bundle.
429. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
430. Mr West : And that was dismissed on next day by His Honour Judge Owen QC at page
98.
431. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
432. Mr West : And again you see a paragraph to be specifically recited it said the application
was totally without merit.
433. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
434. Mr West : Now My Lord the only thing that I would add was that, as you will have seen
from the claim form, the stamp on the claim form on page one of the bundles, the matter
appears to us that it was assigned to Master McCleod. You’ll be aware of course that
Master McLeod could only make a limited civil restraint order which is why we only sought
a limited civil restraint order …
435. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
436. Mr West : … in the application notice.
437. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
438. Mr West : Your Lordship may take the view in light of what has been said this morning
the fact that there are further applications without merit that have been made (inaudible) …
439. Mr Justice Phillips : The appropriate order here would be an extended.
440. Mr West : Yes. And that is what I seek.
441. Mr Justice Phillips : May I just … 95 and 98 are, there’s also an order at 111.
442. Mr West : Ah that is a duplication, I’m sorry, of page 95.
443. Mr Justice Phillips : Duplication of 95?
444. Mr West : Yes. So it’s not a separate order.
445. Mr Justice Phillips : So that’s a claim to set aside the … to have the mortgage set aside?
446. Mr West : Yes.
447. Mr Justice Phillips : And the one at 98 is a claim.
448. Mr West : That was for injunctive relief which is at pages 112 to 113 to stop the sale or
the destruction of the goods and chattels from the property.
449. Mr Justice Phillips : Thank you. Yes, now Mr Crawford you understand the application
that’s being made is for a civil restraint order against you. You mentioned them earlier so
you’re plainly familiar with the concept of a civil restraint order. And you’ve seen Mr ….
450. Mr Crawford : I’m aware of it …
451. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
452. Mr Crawford : … recently, and this application is the same one as you have and they sign
it, did they sign this application as a statement of truth? Is this their honesty been brought
into (inaudible) once again? There is no signature on the statement of truth. They didn’t
sign this application. This is a …
453. Mr Justice Phillips : Right has this … has this application been …
454. Mr West : My Lord there’s a signed statement of truth with the witness statement.
455. Mr Crawford : But that isn’t this.
456. Mr Justice Phillips : Any … has the application notice been sealed and the fee paid?
457. Mr West : Yes.
458. Mr Justice Phillips : Have you got that?
459. Mr Crawford : I haven’t got it.
460. Mr West : We haven’t got it back from the court yet apparently.
461. Mr Justice Phillips : Right. Stella is that possible to check on the system? Is it possible to
check if this application notice has been sealed?
462. Mr West : There we are.
463. Mr Justice Phillips : Thank you very much. There we are Mr Crawford, perhaps Mr
Crawford can see that.
464. Mr Crawford : Should that have been filed and served on me?
465. Mr Justice Phillips : Well you can serve with it, you’ve been served with a copy of the
application notice haven’t you?
466. Mr Crawford : I was told to have it sealed and then …
467. Mr Justice Phillips : Mr, I’m sorry Mr Crawford, it’s just not the way things work. Yes
the court has to be satisfied …
468. Mr Crawford : Yeah, okay.
469. Mr Justice Phillips : … that the fees have been paid …
470. Mr Crawford : And it’s …
471. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m afraid …
472. Mr Crawford : … still not signed.
473. Mr Justice Phillips : It doesn’t matter that … that relates to the … what they’re relying
upon at 10 is the attached witnesses statements, they don’t need to serve a statement of truth
under that aspect because its … that’s the evidence. I’m afraid these attempts to …
474. Mr Crawford : No its not attempts, it’s… I followed the order and I followed Judge
Greens order to the letter and …
475. Mr Justice Phillips : Shall we … shall we deal with the merits of the matter …
476. Mr Crawford : Okay.
477. Mr Justice Phillips : … Mr Crawford rather than looking at, what’s with respect are …
478. Mr Crawford : Procedural matters.
479. Mr Justice Phillips : Well they’re not just procedural but they are meritless because the
application has been made, you received it and it has been stamped and a fee has been paid.
480. Mr Crawford : Yeah but we’ve just received that now.
481. Mr Justice Phillips : But why does that … why does that matter to you in any way?
482. Mr Crawford : Because I …
483. Mr Justice Phillips : Well what are you …
484. Mr Crawford : … I imagined that they sent us Sir (inaudible) …
485. Mr Justice Phillips : Are you suggesting … are you suggesting that the fact that you
haven’t had a sealed …
486. Mr Crawford : No.
487. Mr Justice Phillips : … copy application notice in anyway prejudices your ability to
respond to it?
488. Mr Crawford : Yes because I didn’t think that was a document from the court. This was a
document from them. I followed Judge Green’s orders everything should be sealed and
then delivered, they didn’t do that. But setting that aside they didn’t sign it either, they are
trying at this point here to also take my wife into these proceedings and … I haven’t had the
chance to investigate exactly what this application is all about, I was basically bushwhacked
again.
489. (Discussion with colleague)
490. Mr Crawford : As my friend here said I have … I should have the opportunity to point by
point with this, this application that … putting that aside just now I put several claims in,
the first one quite correctly pointed out that Bradford and Bingley had a unlawful claim on
the property. Number two the next claim was for my chattels, that is not part of this. Once
again they were going to destroy my chattels and yet Judge Owen dismissed it. I asked him
… in fact I said, I pointed out the law to him and he told me, and unfortunately I didn’t, I
should’ve got the transcript, he said the law doesn’t matter in this case.
491. Mr Justice Phillips : But did you appeal either of those orders?
492. Mr Crawford : No I didn’t appeal that, we managed to get some of our chattels back, and
then I’ve got this case, the only one that my wife got involved with was to save her
property, her chattels. I notice that they drag my wife into nearly every paragraph that they
can in their skeleton argument and I can see the reason why because they want to make her
also part of this restraining order which is once again malicious.
493. (Takes instructions from his adviser)
494. So basically I find that the law society uses this particular tool against persons, litigants in
person. If the law society went by their own rules I don’t think there’d be a law practice
going if every one that they bring to court they win, but they don’t … they lose as many on
either side, so this is a tool aimed at a litigant in person. We have the right to defend
ourselves if we think we are being done wrong.
495. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes but you’ll appreciate there’s nothing a civil restraint order stops
you from making applications, it just means you first of all have to get permission of a
judge.
496. Mr Crawford : Yes, and this is the … this is the problem, the law society … why should
we be put in this position where there’s also another added to this application that …
497. (Discussion with his advisers)
498. Mr Crawford : … there is an extra little threat in this, there’s an extra little threat in this,
where it says;
“Further given the litigation nature of the claimant and there’s severe security
risks”.
499. Well total nonsense again.
“… the defendant would …”
500. A penal notice, now can you explain to me what they’re trying to gain by a penal notice of
myself? I do not understand what they mean by a penal notice.
501. Mr Justice Phillips : Well the way that a civil restraint order works is that it requires you
to seek permission from a named judge before making any claims or applications in relation
to the matter in question.
502. Mr Crawford : (inaudible).
503. Mr Justice Phillips : So … and that, and because the court’s on notice of that I don’t think
a penal notice is necessary and I won’t be ordering a penal notice for that.
504. Mr Crawford : Okay, I didn’t know what it actually meant that’s why I was …
505. Mr Justice Phillips : Well the … is there anything you want to say about the substantive
aspects of it, and plainly you addressed me on a couple of them but …
506. Mr Crawford : Mhmm.
507. Mr Justice Phillips : … it does appear here Mr Crawford as though you’ve made a number
of claims which have been dismissed as totally without merit.
508. Mr Crawford : Its … I went down the facts of the case today, and that is where …
509. Mr Justice Phillips : And you’ve done so, if I may say so, you’ve done so very
courteously and with no little skill and I certainly am not suggesting today in anyway that
what you have done has been …
510. Mr Crawford : It’s not malicious in anyway.
511. Mr Justice Phillips : … has been, that you have in anyway behaved improperly.
512. Mr Crawford : Okay.
513. Mr Justice Phillips : It’s just the merit of your application which is in question. So unless
you want to say anything further I will give a further judgment in relation to this
application?
514. Mr Crawford : Okay. I will feel that the court will bind my hands when I find further
evidence to bring a case. I note the reluctance of every judge, once this has been put on a
person to restrict their access to court and they’re very, very seldom lifted, and in my case
because of the publicity, because of the story behind it, they will certainly not give me
access to court.
515. Mr Justice Phillips : Well a judge, a judge obviously, it’s a … the obstacle you have to
surmount is persuading the court that you have a proper application to make, and if you
haven’t got a proper application to make then it’s in everybody’s interests that you don’t
make it.
516. Mr Crawford : Yeah.
517. Mr Justice Phillips : It doesn’t stop you defending yourself, it stops you making
applications. Well I think Mr Ebert is probably familiar with civil restraint orders.
518. Mr Ebert : I am very familiar, that’s the reason I can assist him. That’s illegal. He is
entitled to put his defence.
519. Mr Justice Phillips : Is there anything else you want to add on the substance of it?
520. Mr Crawford : No that’s it, thank you for listening. Thank you.
(Judgment on civil restraint order transcribed separately)
521. Mr Crawford : Thank you. The penal you never mentioned?
522. Mr Justice Phillips : Well I’ve indicated that I wasn’t minded, I’ll just hear … I’ll hear
from Mr West if he wants to say anything about that, but my understanding about the way a
civil restraint order really operates is that it should be … there is a central list of civil
restraint orders.
523. Mr West : Yes there is.
524. Mr Justice Phillips : And the courts, the relevant court should be aware of it …
525. Mr West : Yes.
526. Mr Justice Phillips : … and the way it operates really is, is its not so much a restriction on
what the defendant… it’s almost like a freezing order, it’s the third parties who know about
it that matter.
527. Mr West : Yes.
528. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m very reluctant to put a penal notice on it, I don’t think I … I’m
not sure I’ve seen a penal notice on civil restraint orders?
529. Mr West : The answer is that actually the printed … the printed form in 19A pre supposes
that there will be one.
530. Mr Justice Phillips : Does it, right.
531. Mr West : But if you’re content to proceed on the basis that there isn’t to be one in these
circumstances so be it. I can hand up a copy.
532. Mr Justice Phillips : Can I see? As I say I just can’t remember whether they had one or
not. Thank you.
533. Mr West : Though of course Your Lordship is not bound by the pre printed form …
534. Mr Justice Phillips : No.
535. Mr West : … if you take the view, if you think in the circumstances it would sufficient to
make the order without that notice attached, of course one can strike it through.
536. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
537. Mr West : The only other two minor points that I would raise as to the form of the order,
first of all Your Lordship referred to the fact of a judge to be identified.
538. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
539. Mr West : Now certainly in the chancery division the practice certainly when a Master
makes a restraint order is that at the foot of the page the name of the Master is recited or in
the alternative a Master is signed by the Chief Master in the absence of the named Master.
Your Lordship may take the view that to reserve the matter to yourself, for all sorts of
obvious reasons would not be a sensible way of proceeding …
540. Mr Justice Phillips : No.
541. Mr West : … therefore perhaps if one strikes through the name of the judge or if
unavailable one simply says the application’s judge for the time being of the Queens Bench
Division.
542. Mr Justice Phillips : I’ll think about that.
543. Mr West : Yes.
544. Mr Justice Phillips : I think … I think the more appropriate thing is for me to draft
extended restraint order and I’m not going to include a penal notice. It may be that the
appropriate person to name is the judge in charge of the Queens Bench list.
545. Mr West : Yes.
546. Mr Justice Phillips : Or a judge nominated by him.
547. Mr West : Or nominated by him yes.
548. Mr Justice Phillips : I’m not sure … Stella what’s the … they normally do here with the
restraint orders? Okay, thanks. I’ll probably put any High Court Judge of the Queens
Bench Division.
549. Mr West : Yes.
550. Mr Justice Phillips : And one of the points about naming any particular of the Queens
Bench Division …
551. Mr West : Of course.
552. Mr Justice Phillips : … Judges is that they not be here.
553. Mr West : They may be elsewhere at the time.
554. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
555. Mr West : The other matter that I should specifically raise with you is the question of time
limit. That you see appears over the page at the top of page two.
556. Mr Justice Phillips : Well I would’ve thought two years is the appropriate figure.
557. Mr West : Because under the terms of the rules the order will be made for a specified
period not exceeding two years.
558. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes well two years is the appropriate figure.
559. Mr West : Yes My Lord.
560. Mr Justice Phillips : Very well, anything you want to say about that?
561. Mr Crawford : You say I’m restricted to certain courts. What about courts that’s higher
than this court, Supreme Court?
562. Mr Justice Phillips : No it doesn’t stop you in the Court of Appeal or the High … or the
Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court.
563. Mr Crawford : So I’m not … I’m not restricted to those areas. Then I should be seeing
you there Sir.
564. Mr Justice Phillips : Right so Mr West if you can draft the order from …
565. Mr West : Yes.
566. Mr Justice Phillips : … the other applications, I will draft an extended civil restraint order
and that probably concludes our business for today.
567. Mr Walder: My Lord just before, can I just check how the position of the Land Registry
is going to be recorded in the order that my learned friend drafts …
568. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes.
569. Mr Walder : Because it’s still unclear actually if the Land Registry were party to the
application or it was simply an error that drew us here, now …
570. Mr Justice Phillips : Well it seems to me whether it’s an error or not you, did not ... there
was no application against you, written or oral.
571. Mr Walder : So were not a respondent technically.
572. Mr Justice Phillips : So you’re not a respondent.
573. Mr Walder : Could it be recorded in a pre amble then the Land Registry was not …
574. Mr Justice Phillips : Well I think it should simply say that upon the Land Registry
attending but not being subject to any application.
575. Mr Walder : I’m grateful My Lord.
576. Mr Justice Phillips : I think that’s all, all one can say.
577. Mr Walder : I’m grateful.
578. Mr Justice Phillips : Is there anything else? In which case I …
579. Mr Crawford : So sorry, we respond (inaudible) on a point which is probably winging its
way through the courts to the Land Registry. It’s… they’ve got a committee of three very
learned persons that sit in judgment of the Land Registry’s behaviour regarding this, will
the restraining order be also on that?
580. Mr Justice Phillips : Well I don’t think it … I don’t think a Civil Restraint order is going
to stop you dealing with anything other than courts.
581. Mr Crawford : But you did say it touched on.
582. Mr Justice Phillips : Yes but its … but its applications in any courts specified below and
the courts specified below to be clear will be the High Court or any County Court.
583. Mr Crawford : Yeah, okay, thank you Sir.
584. Mr Justice Phillips : Alright. Thank you all very much.
End of transcription
We hereby certify that this is a verbatim transcript of the hearing heard on 3rd September
2015.
Compril Limited
I don't take sides, I read all the facts and then come to my own conclusions
-
letissier14
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1021
- Joined: Fri May 15, 2015 3:02 pm
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
The Judgment
Case No: IHQ/15/0503
IN TH HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
3RD September 2015
B E F O R E:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PHILLIPS
_____________________
Judgment
_____________________
No. of folios in transcript: 20
No. of words in transcript: 1461
CRAWFORD
Claimant
-v-
BRADFORD & BINGLEY PLC
Defendant
Compril Limited
Telephone: 01642 232324
Facsimile: 01642 244001
Denmark House
169-173 Stockton Street
Middlehaven
Middlesbrough
TS2 1BY
1. The claimant, Thomas Crawford, and his wife were the registered proprietors of a
property at 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton Gedling, Nottinghamshire. On the 31st August
1988 they executed a mortgage in favour of the Bradford & Bingley, the defendants in
this claim.
2. In 2012 the Bradford & Bingley commenced possession proceedings against the
claimant and his wife in the Nottingham County Court in relation to what Mr
Crawford accepts were three missed instalments under the mortgage.
3. On the 19th September 2012 Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith made a suspended
possession order directing that:
i. The claimant do give possession of the property on or before 17th October 2012.
ii. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85, being the amount outstanding under
the mortgage, which is not to be enforced so long as the possession order remains
suspended.
iii. This order is not to be enforced so long as the defendant pays the current
instalments under the mortgage first instalment being paid on the 30th September
2012.
iv. This matter shall be listed for review in six months on a date to be fixed by the
court.
4. The copy of that order has been provided by the Court Tribunal Service at
Nottingham under cover of a letter of 12th August 2015, printed from the court
system. Mr Crawford points out that there is no stamp on that order but that is not
surprising as it is a copy printed from the court’s computer.
5. Subsequently, the claimant and his wife ceased to pay mortgage instalments, their
contention being that the 25 year term of the mortgage had expired and that no further
sums were due. There was an application to appeal the possession order which, on 9th
May 2013, was refused by His Honour Judge Godsmark QC and, on 25th February
2015, the claimant and his wife applied for a stay of execution of the warrant for
possession. His Honour Judge Godsmark QC stayed execution of the warrant for
possession, pending hearing of an application for permission to appeal the possession
order out of time.
6. On 14th May of this year His Honour Judge Godsmark delivered a lengthy reserved
judgment, the effect of which was correctly summarised in his order of 14th May in
which he granted permission to appeal out of time, but permission to appeal was
refused. He also lifted the stay of execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn
Chase, Carlton, Nottingham. Thereafter, the Bradford & Bingley applied for a new
warrant for possession which was executed by the court bailiff on 2nd July, at which
point possession of the property was taken by the Bradford & Bingley, pursuant to the
possession order of 19th September 2012.
7. The property has thereafter been sold by the Bradford & Bingley as mortgagee in
possession to a third party; the sale to that third party was duly registered at the Land
Registry, showing a sale on 31st July 2015.
8. On 21st August this year Mr Crawford issued these proceedings by way of a part 8
claim form, the brief details of which state that the claim is as follows:
(1) To reinstate my position in fact and in common law
(2) Protection from Eviction and Harassment Act 1977
(3) Contrary to the ECHR Convention 1952, Articles 3,5 - 4,6 and 8.
9. Mr Crawford attended on 18th August before Green J, apparently on a without notice
basis, seeking injunctive relief in the terms of the claim form, seeking his
“reinstatement” in relation to the property. It appears that that application, which was
made in an application notice dated 18th August, was adjourned to today’s date.
10. An order was made by Green J which names the Land Registry as defendant,
adjourning an application against the Land Registry to today’s date. Whether that was
by mistake or intentional is unclear but, in any event, Mr Crawford served that order
on the Land Registry and they have attended today by Mr Walder of counsel, although
Mr Crawford has confirmed that, in fact, no application is made against the Land
Registry.
11. The exact nature of the application sought to be made is somewhat unclear. This is not
the hearing of the part 8 claim, but is an interim application for some form of relief,
reinstating Mr Crawford to his position as owner of the property, but the present
registered owner of the property has not been served or joined in these proceedings;
there is no application to rectify the register; and the basis upon which the court is
invited to grant interim relief to transfer, or re-transfer, ownership of the property to
Mr Crawford, is entirely unexplained. I see no basis, even on the broadest approach,
upon which the court could entertain, on an interlocutory basis, the type of application
Mr Crawford puts forward today.
12. Be that as it may, looking at the underlying aspects of his claim, his contention is that
the underlying proceedings, pursuant to which possession was ordered and taken,
were flawed and/or fraudulent. He complains variously that Bradford & Bingley did
not pay a fee in relation to the initial issue of the possession proceedings. That appears
to be his main complaint as to the invalidity of the underlying proceedings. He admits
he was in arrears at the time when the original possession order was made, he does not
accept he was in arrears at any time thereafter. He also makes various complaints
about the issue of the warrant; he claims it was not properly served on him and
complains about the manner in which the warrant was executed.
13. As far as the underlying complaints about the proceedings are concerned, it appears
that each of those points was thoroughly addressed and dismissed in the judgment of
His Honour Judge Godsmark. His Honour Judge Godsmark expressly addressed the
question of the alleged non payment of fees; expressly addressed the allegation that
there were no outstanding mortgage payments; and also addressed allegations of fraud
and misrepresentation. The result being that Mr Crawford’s appeal against the
possession order was not permitted to proceed and the stay on the warrant of
execution was lifted.
14. His Honour Judge Godsmark’s decision plainly gives rise to issue estoppel and res
judicata in relation to those matters; all the more so given that possession has now
been taken of the property and it has been sold to a third party. Any attempt to further
litigate those matters could only be done by an out of time application to appeal
against the order of His Honour Judge Godsmark which would be met, it seems to me,
by insuperable difficulties given the passage of time, the fact that it would be a second
appeal and, further, given the intervening rights which had been accrued by a third
party in the meantime. Further, I see no basis upon which this court, which is not the
appropriate court for an appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Godsmark, can
interfere with that order, even if there was any basis upon which to do so.
15. I am, therefore, entirely satisfied that there is no basis for going behind the possession
order and warrant for possession which resulted in Mr Crawford and his wife being
evicted from their home. As far as complaints about the execution of the warrant are
concerned, those do not seem to me to justify the interim relief sought, even if there is
any merit to them. Indeed, the execution was effected by the bailiffs and they are not
the subject of these proceedings, or parties to them.
16. For those reasons, I see no merit whatsoever in the underlying claim, or in the
application which is made to the court today. Furthermore, I consider it to be totally
without merit. I further consider that the claim itself is totally without merit and of the
court’s own motion the claim will be dismissed and also will be noted to be totally
without merit.
17. As I have said, no application has expressly been made against the Land Registry and
so, insofar as there is recorded any such application, I make no order in relation to
that.
End of judgment
We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by The Honourable Mr
Justice Phillips.
Compril Limited
Case No: IHQ/15/0503
IN TH HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
3RD September 2015
B E F O R E:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE PHILLIPS
_____________________
Judgment
_____________________
No. of folios in transcript: 20
No. of words in transcript: 1461
CRAWFORD
Claimant
-v-
BRADFORD & BINGLEY PLC
Defendant
Compril Limited
Telephone: 01642 232324
Facsimile: 01642 244001
Denmark House
169-173 Stockton Street
Middlehaven
Middlesbrough
TS2 1BY
1. The claimant, Thomas Crawford, and his wife were the registered proprietors of a
property at 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton Gedling, Nottinghamshire. On the 31st August
1988 they executed a mortgage in favour of the Bradford & Bingley, the defendants in
this claim.
2. In 2012 the Bradford & Bingley commenced possession proceedings against the
claimant and his wife in the Nottingham County Court in relation to what Mr
Crawford accepts were three missed instalments under the mortgage.
3. On the 19th September 2012 Deputy District Judge Murray-Smith made a suspended
possession order directing that:
i. The claimant do give possession of the property on or before 17th October 2012.
ii. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85, being the amount outstanding under
the mortgage, which is not to be enforced so long as the possession order remains
suspended.
iii. This order is not to be enforced so long as the defendant pays the current
instalments under the mortgage first instalment being paid on the 30th September
2012.
iv. This matter shall be listed for review in six months on a date to be fixed by the
court.
4. The copy of that order has been provided by the Court Tribunal Service at
Nottingham under cover of a letter of 12th August 2015, printed from the court
system. Mr Crawford points out that there is no stamp on that order but that is not
surprising as it is a copy printed from the court’s computer.
5. Subsequently, the claimant and his wife ceased to pay mortgage instalments, their
contention being that the 25 year term of the mortgage had expired and that no further
sums were due. There was an application to appeal the possession order which, on 9th
May 2013, was refused by His Honour Judge Godsmark QC and, on 25th February
2015, the claimant and his wife applied for a stay of execution of the warrant for
possession. His Honour Judge Godsmark QC stayed execution of the warrant for
possession, pending hearing of an application for permission to appeal the possession
order out of time.
6. On 14th May of this year His Honour Judge Godsmark delivered a lengthy reserved
judgment, the effect of which was correctly summarised in his order of 14th May in
which he granted permission to appeal out of time, but permission to appeal was
refused. He also lifted the stay of execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn
Chase, Carlton, Nottingham. Thereafter, the Bradford & Bingley applied for a new
warrant for possession which was executed by the court bailiff on 2nd July, at which
point possession of the property was taken by the Bradford & Bingley, pursuant to the
possession order of 19th September 2012.
7. The property has thereafter been sold by the Bradford & Bingley as mortgagee in
possession to a third party; the sale to that third party was duly registered at the Land
Registry, showing a sale on 31st July 2015.
8. On 21st August this year Mr Crawford issued these proceedings by way of a part 8
claim form, the brief details of which state that the claim is as follows:
(1) To reinstate my position in fact and in common law
(2) Protection from Eviction and Harassment Act 1977
(3) Contrary to the ECHR Convention 1952, Articles 3,5 - 4,6 and 8.
9. Mr Crawford attended on 18th August before Green J, apparently on a without notice
basis, seeking injunctive relief in the terms of the claim form, seeking his
“reinstatement” in relation to the property. It appears that that application, which was
made in an application notice dated 18th August, was adjourned to today’s date.
10. An order was made by Green J which names the Land Registry as defendant,
adjourning an application against the Land Registry to today’s date. Whether that was
by mistake or intentional is unclear but, in any event, Mr Crawford served that order
on the Land Registry and they have attended today by Mr Walder of counsel, although
Mr Crawford has confirmed that, in fact, no application is made against the Land
Registry.
11. The exact nature of the application sought to be made is somewhat unclear. This is not
the hearing of the part 8 claim, but is an interim application for some form of relief,
reinstating Mr Crawford to his position as owner of the property, but the present
registered owner of the property has not been served or joined in these proceedings;
there is no application to rectify the register; and the basis upon which the court is
invited to grant interim relief to transfer, or re-transfer, ownership of the property to
Mr Crawford, is entirely unexplained. I see no basis, even on the broadest approach,
upon which the court could entertain, on an interlocutory basis, the type of application
Mr Crawford puts forward today.
12. Be that as it may, looking at the underlying aspects of his claim, his contention is that
the underlying proceedings, pursuant to which possession was ordered and taken,
were flawed and/or fraudulent. He complains variously that Bradford & Bingley did
not pay a fee in relation to the initial issue of the possession proceedings. That appears
to be his main complaint as to the invalidity of the underlying proceedings. He admits
he was in arrears at the time when the original possession order was made, he does not
accept he was in arrears at any time thereafter. He also makes various complaints
about the issue of the warrant; he claims it was not properly served on him and
complains about the manner in which the warrant was executed.
13. As far as the underlying complaints about the proceedings are concerned, it appears
that each of those points was thoroughly addressed and dismissed in the judgment of
His Honour Judge Godsmark. His Honour Judge Godsmark expressly addressed the
question of the alleged non payment of fees; expressly addressed the allegation that
there were no outstanding mortgage payments; and also addressed allegations of fraud
and misrepresentation. The result being that Mr Crawford’s appeal against the
possession order was not permitted to proceed and the stay on the warrant of
execution was lifted.
14. His Honour Judge Godsmark’s decision plainly gives rise to issue estoppel and res
judicata in relation to those matters; all the more so given that possession has now
been taken of the property and it has been sold to a third party. Any attempt to further
litigate those matters could only be done by an out of time application to appeal
against the order of His Honour Judge Godsmark which would be met, it seems to me,
by insuperable difficulties given the passage of time, the fact that it would be a second
appeal and, further, given the intervening rights which had been accrued by a third
party in the meantime. Further, I see no basis upon which this court, which is not the
appropriate court for an appeal from the decision of His Honour Judge Godsmark, can
interfere with that order, even if there was any basis upon which to do so.
15. I am, therefore, entirely satisfied that there is no basis for going behind the possession
order and warrant for possession which resulted in Mr Crawford and his wife being
evicted from their home. As far as complaints about the execution of the warrant are
concerned, those do not seem to me to justify the interim relief sought, even if there is
any merit to them. Indeed, the execution was effected by the bailiffs and they are not
the subject of these proceedings, or parties to them.
16. For those reasons, I see no merit whatsoever in the underlying claim, or in the
application which is made to the court today. Furthermore, I consider it to be totally
without merit. I further consider that the claim itself is totally without merit and of the
court’s own motion the claim will be dismissed and also will be noted to be totally
without merit.
17. As I have said, no application has expressly been made against the Land Registry and
so, insofar as there is recorded any such application, I make no order in relation to
that.
End of judgment
We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by The Honourable Mr
Justice Phillips.
Compril Limited
I don't take sides, I read all the facts and then come to my own conclusions
-
wanglepin
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1215
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:41 pm
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
"the judgement was excellent because it didn`t reflect the actual judgment".38. Mr Justice Phillips : The point is that at the end of the day what happened was that he
made an order in which he granted you permission to appeal, dismissed your appeal and
lifted the suspension on enforcement, so that’s what the court has ordered. And you’re now
trying to reargue that aren’t you?
39. Mr Crawford : No, no. The judgment was fine. It was excellent. [the idiot then follows this up with] But in fact the order
that was passed down it didn’t reflect the actual judgment.
CEYLON AT HIS BEST >>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqUhR4n ... g&index=91
Hainings arrest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2MI07tVoh0
>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqUhR4n ... g&index=91
Hainings arrest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2MI07tVoh0
-
Bill Lumbergh
- Pirate Captain
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:06 pm
- Location: Initech Head Office
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
This is magnificent but is there a way to post the document on a filesharing site? Like Burnaby does with Mediafire, or something like that? It's a bit hard to read.
-
Jeffrey
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 3076
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
70. Mr Crawford : His Honour Godsmark, in this document and I believe that is in his
judgment, this is page … this is 91 of his judgment, he could not find at the time of
commencement of possession proceedings, where a total of £1,802.90, and he states here
“that is not a figure that I could identify from the statements” and when he asked the
barristers where it came from Ms Sanders told him “from the computer”. And as he said
here, “the computer should be our slave, not our master”. He knew that there was a
problem with the accounts. We’d insisted that Bradford & Bingley produce accounts; the
only things they produced was three payments which is in that document, which I’ve just
passed up to you.
71. Mr Justice Phillips : He goes on to say: “However, none of this helps Mr Crawford in
relation to possession. The entitlement to possession is triggered by…”.
-
YiamCross
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:23 pm
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
That image is so spot on it should be the emblem of the whole sad Crawford saga. Especially....Jeffrey wrote:…”.
As Ebert himself put it, pure gold.517. Mr Justice Phillips : It doesn’t stop you defending yourself, it stops you making
applications. Well I think Mr Ebert is probably familiar with civil restraint orders.
518. Mr Ebert : I am very familiar, that’s the reason I can assist him. That’s illegal. He is
entitled to put his defence.
-
YiamCross
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1216
- Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2015 11:23 pm
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
Just a thought, has anyone sent a link for the transcript to poor old Tom Crawford? I'm torn between begrudging him a freebie and feeling sorry that the poor old duffer couldn't afford a copy for himself. On balance I guess it can only lead to more prattfalls and shenanigans to keep us laughing now winter is drawing in.
Insert small violin playing Hearts and Flowers here.....402. Mr Crawford : Just before you proceed could I have a transcript of this?
403. Mr Justice Phillips : Well you can always order a transcript yourself, if you’re asking me
to order a transcript at public expense then I’m afraid I’m not prepared to do that.
404. Mr Crawford : Okay.
-
slowsmile
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 273
- Joined: Sat May 02, 2015 7:59 pm
- Location: Perigord Noir, France
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
This will no doubt give rise to claims by Sov's of proof that the courts are privately owned.letissier14 wrote:
We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by The Honourable Mr
Justice Phillips.
Compril Limited
-
PeanutGallery
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 1581
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:11 pm
- Location: In a gallery, with Peanuts.
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
I note that Tom said he wanted a copy of the transcript. He can use ours, we're happy to help Tom.
Warning may contain traces of nut
-
longdog
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 4806
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
For all of his bluff and bluster and legal learnin' when he's in front of a camera it's quite clear from that transcript that he is completely out of his depth in court. Even allowing for the fact that his case was 100% merit free any one of my dogs could have made a better fist of presenting an argument than he did.
I must be getting old in my soft age because I started to feel sorry for the old twat by paragraph 100.
I must be getting old in my soft age because I started to feel sorry for the old twat by paragraph 100.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
-
Bill Lumbergh
- Pirate Captain
- Posts: 225
- Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2014 5:06 pm
- Location: Initech Head Office
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
Yes, what struck me from this transcript, besides the sheer idiocy of the claim, was just how frequently he would be "advised" by his stellar legal team. He obviously doesn't fully understand what he's doing and he's just giving scripted statements.
Just another pawn for the gurus. Sad.
Just another pawn for the gurus. Sad.
-
Jeffrey
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 3076
- Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:16 am
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
Lost the house and still owes the bank money. Literally the worst ending possible to this saga.346. Mr Justice Phillips : And you received, you recovered that there was a surplus was there?
347. Mr West : No there was a shortfall.
-
longdog
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 4806
- Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 8:53 am
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
Corrected for you.Jeffrey wrote:Lost the house and the chicken and still owes the bank money. Literally the worst ending possible to this saga.346. Mr Justice Phillips : And you received, you recovered that there was a surplus was there?
347. Mr West : No there was a shortfall.
JULIAN: I recommend we try Per verulium ad camphorum actus injuria linctus est.
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
SANDY: That's your actual Latin.
HORNE: What does it mean?
JULIAN: I dunno - I got it off a bottle of horse rub, but it sounds good, doesn't it?
-
LordEd
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 908
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 3:14 pm
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
A win!Bradford and Bingley aren’t seeking an order for costs against you and I’ve
refused an order to the Land Registry,
-
littleFred
- Stern Faced Schoolmaster of Serious Discussion
- Posts: 1363
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 7:12 am
- Location: England, UK
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
I used to have some respect for John Hurst. He seemed fairly well-read, and also knew the limits of his own knowledge. But lately he has been inventing or parroting junk, and now he is leading Tom into deeper waters. Tom provides a teaser for his future actions:
298. Mr Crawford : ... And there’ll be an application for a committal as well.
308. Mr Crawford : No I just want to be put back in my position and it’s Bradford & Bingley that’s entitled to do that, in fact not only do I want to be put back in my position, I want Bradford & Bingley CEOs and their colleagues put in jail for what they’re doing.
-
Dr. Caligari
- J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
- Posts: 1812
- Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Southern California
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
"As you wish," said the stranger, "so be it."-- John Brunner, The Traveler in BlackYiamCross wrote:Insert small violin playing Hearts and Flowers here.....
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
(Du musst Caligari werden!)
-
NYGman
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 2272
- Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 6:01 pm
- Location: New York, NY
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
Shouldn't Tom now just be suing for damages for the "Fraudulent eviction" which at this point, seeing the house is sold to a third party, be the value of the house, and Punitive damages. This is assuming that something was actually fraudulent, which to be clear, it isn't. My point is, Tom is barking up the wrong tree now, the house is sold, and registered to a new owner, that avenue for a recovery is now off the table. The house is gone, and the only way Tom can get it back is to buy it back. A wise person would realize that is what the court is telling him. B&B no longer have the ability to give back something that is not theirs to give. What he could do is sue then in court for breach of contract, but we all know who breached the terms through non-payment.
As to private criminal prosecution, he did really say that, right, I wasn't imagining it, is just bound to fail. Unlike his criminal prosecution, which will probably go against him.
As to private criminal prosecution, he did really say that, right, I wasn't imagining it, is just bound to fail. Unlike his criminal prosecution, which will probably go against him.
The Hardest Thing in the World to Understand is Income Taxes -Albert Einstein
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose - As sung by Janis Joplin (and others) Written by Kris Kristofferson and Fred Foster.
-
NG3
- Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
- Posts: 810
- Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 11:49 am
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
Regardless of whether that £98,000 is correct or not, his genuine surprise at a shortfall does indicate that none of his "supporters" explained the costs attached to his various actions and activities in this matter, and we know that Haining was well aware of those costs, and one would assume others would have some knowledge of the matter having almost certainly experienced the same thing.386. Mr Crawford : This isn’t arguing, he just stated that there was a shortfall in the sale, now
that shortfall they were asking £43,000, you’ve got the figures there …
387. Mr Justice Phillips : Mhmm.
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 with no accounts once
again, they are acting as a fraudulent company.
I have no sympathy for Crawford, he has lied, he clearly knew he was attempting to get away without paying what he'd agreed to (effectively a form of theft) even if at some point he began to believe the false justifications fed to him and to believe there was some legitimacy to his obviously merit-less arguments, however, if I were him I'd be asking those so called "supporters" why they didn't warn him they were actually helping him piss money away, and I'd also be seeking alternative counsel.
However, even though he might read this thread, to read the transcript, he still won't stop to think, or digest the words of this thread, even though it's been shown that had he read here, rather than listen to morons peddling toxic freemen junk, it would have saved him in excess of £100,000, so far.
-
ArthurWankspittle
- Slavering Minister of Auto-erotic Insinuation
- Posts: 3759
- Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 9:35 am
- Location: Quatloos Immigration Control
Re: Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/16 Part 1 & 2
As I have been suggesting as a possibility. Problem is Tom, they seem worse than you think.142. Mr Crawford : Sorry, I forgot, you’ll have to excuse me, I’ve got short term memory
problems.
Once again you prove that either you are thick or have memory issues. You have already been told numerous times that the B&B don't need to ask for costs as it is covered by the mortgage agreement. Reading that confirms to me that the shortfall is £98,000. Also, as I have said previously, I don't think B&B sent Tom a letter saying just "you owe us £98,000". I would expect that either further information was enclosed or is available on request.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 with no accounts once
again, they are acting as a fraudulent company.
Also, as I suspected and mentioned elsewhere, Tom will be paying for B&B's barrister and solicitor defending this crap.
"There is something about true madness that goes beyond mere eccentricity." Will Self