Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[ArthurWankspittle]

If there was a point at which he realised the truth of the matter, my guess is that it wasn't until quite a few years later.

Looking back at the timeline, in 1999 B&B discuss the lack of capital repayment vehicle but Tom doesn't do anything about it. I assume they keep paying the mortgage until 2006 when they miss several payments but pay all the arrears up later. Nothing out of line occurs until 2012 when they get behind with the mortgage again. August 2012 the B&B start possession claim. A deal is done to make mortgage payments and allow for the fact that Tom is unwell and can't work for a while. (Remember he's a carpet fitter, a physical job). I think it is this year (2012) that Tom goes fully off the rails. He is in arrears, struggling to make payments and knows he has to come up with the capital in a year or so, which he also knows isn't going to happen short of a big lucky break. The jigsaw piece you are missing is this: 29th April 2013 Tom (posting as Tommc, avatar of Clive Dunn as Corporal Jones, post since removed IIRC) posts on GOODF that he is due to come up with £43k-ish in August(2013), hasn't got the money and how can he get out of it?

Edit - got a year wrong.

[Footloose52]

Having spent many months in court in Nottingham a while back I don't recall a police station next door, I believe the nearest is actually on Maid Marian Way whilst BTP have 'offices' at the station which is just round the corner.

[hucknallred]

Why didn't he pop round to the cop shop next to the courthouse when it happened?
Methinks he is trying to drop someone in it for no reason.

Possibly because the whole story is Bullshit?

[#six]

Having spent many months in court in Nottingham a while back I don't recall a police station next door, I believe the nearest is actually on Maid Marian Way whilst BTP have 'offices' at the station which is just round the corner.

The main police station has been moved from the city Center and is now behind the court. Bridewell I think it's called.

[Footloose52]

Ah, not been there for a while. Thanks for the update, I know that area has changed a lot especially with the other end, at Boots Island, being redeveloped.

Main police station in Bristol used to be by the court, again called Bridewell.

[doublelong]

As Arthur has pointed out in his first post that he made on goofy he seems to know full well the consequences of not having the endowment in place. The fact that he has now deleted 95% of that post shows that he was well aware as it did not fit with the story he is now pushing in 2016.
Indeed today he states that he has won “all of his court cases” but take a look at footage from the very first eviction, here he tells two reporter that he has lost his cases, with judge Holt and others ruling “no merit” and granting a reposition order.
To be fair thought when he took out the endowment they were sold as a package and not really explained Sue could of easily believed it was just a life insurance policy/investment as many did have this added to the policy paying out is there was a death. Now fast forward to the early 1990s and new rules of selling the building society had to explain the endowment process in more detail you sat down with a finance adviser and they explained all the benefits and pitfalls and the fact that they were a gamble and there was a risk of an underachieving policy.
So to be fair when Sue called the bank in 1999 it is plausible that she believed it was just a life insurance policy and Tom for that matter. But in 2012 the evidence is there in early posts and videos that they knew exactly what an endowment was and the consequences of not having one in place.
So now in 2016 it is clear they are all lying and know full well what they are doing. Now maybe Tom, Sue and kids believed early on that B&B would back down unable to produce the original documents of the endowment as the insurance company has long since been dissolved.
The evidence to show the farce of it all is overwhelming but for me what is unbelievable is that the entire family are so deluded.

[aesmith]

To be fair thought when he took out the endowment they were sold as a package and not really explained Sue could of easily believed it was just a life insurance policy/investment as many did have this added to the policy paying out is there was a death.

We took out an endowment mortgage in 1985 and I don't remember having any lack of clarity about what was involved. The mortgage payments and endowment premiums were separate DDs (might have been standing orders actually at that time) and paid to different organisations. The endowment was pretty clearly explained as well, how it fulfilled the dual function of life insurance and savings plan to repay the principle. The only thing wrong was the over optimistic growth forecasts.

[Normal Wisdom]

To be fair thought when he took out the endowment they were sold as a package and not really explained Sue could of easily believed it was just a life insurance policy/investment as many did have this added to the policy paying out is there was a death.

We took out an endowment mortgage in 1985 and I don't remember having any lack of clarity about what was involved. The mortgage payments and endowment premiums were separate DDs (might have been standing orders actually at that time) and paid to different organisations. The endowment was pretty clearly explained as well, how it fulfilled the dual function of life insurance and savings plan to repay the principle. The only thing wrong was the over optimistic growth forecasts.

Same for me in 1987,a year before Tom and Sue took their mortgage out. I doubt that they had any excuse for not understanding how the mortgage worked even if was possibly their first.

By 2013, when he first contacted GOODF he knew that he was being told he had to raise £43k but I'm still not entirely sure that he understood exactly why. It's been explained to him plenty of times since then but of course he is way past listening to anything sensible. Even in the latest court case he is claiming that he can prove that he made all the mortgage payments (plus an extra one).

[FatGambit]

Not everybody does their homework before taking out a mortgage, and not everybody had an honest broker who tells them the truth, the world is full of people who asume, and if everybody was as intelligent as on display here there wouldn't be the present slow brewing storm over them. A lot of people were sold endowment on the basis the endowment would pay off the capital period. Those little, but important, details were either simply not explained, or glossed over, in some cases.

I got shot down for saying this before so I apologise if you think im flogging the dead seal but i think it is worth remembering this all happened and the bank involved eventually went bust in part becasuse they'd knowingly miss-sold thousands of mortgages to people who had absolutely no hope of ever paying them back, I'm not saying you have to have sympathy for him, it doesn't excuse his utter insane tactics at trying to sort it out, but just remember it takes two to tango and B&B are not the greatest shining example of honesty either.

[Bones]

Not everybody does their homework before taking out a mortgage, and not everybody had an honest broker who tells them the truth, the world is full of people who asume, and if everybody was as intelligent as on display here there wouldn't be the present slow brewing storm over them. A lot of people were sold endowment on the basis the endowment would pay off the capital period. Those little, but important, details were either simply not explained, or glossed over, in some cases.

I got shot down for saying this before so I apologise if you think im flogging the dead seal but i think it is worth remembering this all happened and the bank involved eventually went bust in part becasuse they'd knowingly miss-sold thousands of mortgages to people who had absolutely no hope of ever paying them back, I'm not saying you have to have sympathy for him, it doesn't excuse his utter insane tactics at trying to sort it out, but just remember it takes two to tango and B&B are not the greatest shining example of honesty either.

Isn't it really a mute point ?

As Tom & Sue (no one else) stopped paying the endowment, it is unlikely that we will ever know if the endowment would have been enough to have repaid the amount that he borrowed or not. So in Tom's case it has nothing to do with it taking two to tango - Tom/Sue made the mistake which had nothing to do with B&B in anyway whatsoever to stop paying the endowment. For all we know Tom's endowment might have been enough to repay his mortgage.

Tom has showed that he had statements which clearly showed that the balance was not going down. Those same statements show that the endowment was credited to his mortgage account, when they stopped paying it and it was cancelled. He also knew as proven by his first post on GOODF that he has deleted/edited that he knew the capital balance was payable at the end of the term.

I honestly can't see what B&B can be accused of doing wrong here ? There isn't anything here to blame B&B, the Endowment was with a different company... Tom and Sue are 100% responsible for this

[AndyPandy]

To be fair thought when he took out the endowment they were sold as a package and not really explained Sue could of easily believed it was just a life insurance policy/investment as many did have this added to the policy paying out is there was a death.

We took out an endowment mortgage in 1985 and I don't remember having any lack of clarity about what was involved. The mortgage payments and endowment premiums were separate DDs (might have been standing orders actually at that time) and paid to different organisations. The endowment was pretty clearly explained as well, how it fulfilled the dual function of life insurance and savings plan to repay the principle. The only thing wrong was the over optimistic growth forecasts.

Same for me in 1987,a year before Tom and Sue took their mortgage out. I doubt that they had any excuse for not understanding how the mortgage worked even if was possibly their first.

By 2013, when he first contacted GOODF he knew that he was being told he had to raise £43k but I'm still not entirely sure that he understood exactly why. It's been explained to him plenty of times since then but of course he is way past listening to anything sensible. Even in the latest court case he is claiming that he can prove that he made all the mortgage payments (plus an extra one).

Ditto, I was 21 in 1987, buying my first house, I knew exactly what I was signing up for, you paid one amount to the building society (the Bradford & Bingley as I recall) and the second to the endowment company - Legal & General, the policy payment would be the one that paid the mortgage off at the end.

It wasn't rocket science, it was a con but that's another story, the fact is I had no financial experience, I wouldn't at that point say I was particularly educated but I knew, even at that young age, what I was signing up to!

[Wingding]

Having spent many months in court in Nottingham a while back I don't recall a police station next door, I believe the nearest is actually on Maid Marian Way whilst BTP have 'offices' at the station which is just round the corner.

The main police station has been moved from the city Center and is now behind the court. Bridewell I think it's called.

Just for accuracy - this is not correct. The Bridewell by the court has always been there and is the custody suite. The central police station moved to Byron House on Maid Marian Way.

[Bones]

I hope Jay and co were not going around the Court and intimidating anyone that was there that was not part of Camp Crawfraud, as had happened before.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I got shot down for saying this before so I apologise if you think im flogging the dead seal but i think it is worth remembering this all happened and the bank involved eventually went bust in part becasuse they'd knowingly miss-sold thousands of mortgages to people who had absolutely no hope of ever paying them back, I'm not saying you have to have sympathy for him, it doesn't excuse his utter insane tactics at trying to sort it out, but just remember it takes two to tango and B&B are not the greatest shining example of honesty either.

A lot of lenders had problems and lent money where they shouldn't. However, in many cases (and I think that includes the B&B) it was their subsidiaries that dealt with the riskier end of the market that dragged them down. Tom & Sue's mortgage was with B&B not their riskier subsidiary Mortgage Express or any of the others. So he had a "normal" -ish mortgage, interest only with an endowment. I think the history of Tom's case also implies he put down a deposit. Also, in Tom's defence (you never thought I'd say that did you?) he only got into problems earlier on with the repayments when the economy was bad (1990-92 and 2006-ish) and one of those times was when, and maybe why, Sue stopped paying the endowment. Otherwise, until about 2012 he managed to keep paying the mortgage, which, to me, again, fits in with his take up of the FMOTL/SovCit crap as he contemplates having to find the £43k capital soon despite apparently having paid a mortgage for 24 years.

[FatGambit]

I thought we only dealt in facts here? No-one but Tom and Sue know what happened the day they took out the mortgage, or what they were told, or how it was sold to them, perhaps it would be best to follow your own rules and no speculate about these things.

[Bones]

I was just looking at one of the Crawfraud videos I have saved on my PC and just came across this



This is the letter that B&B sent Tom when they offered to credit £4,300 to his mortgage account as a result of it being reworked as a repayment mortgage. As can be read, all he had to do was let them know his decision (to stay as interest only or change to repayment with a credit of £4,300) via a self addressed envelope.

B&B gave him a chance to get out of this mess many years ago and he refused as confirmed by the Godsmark judgement.

[Bones]

In 2002 they wrote to Tommy and said that they had never recevied his acceptance, so it was not changed to a repayment mortgage but stayed the way it was



They told him to contact the Customer Contact Department

[Bones]

I thought we only dealt in facts here? No-one but Tom and Sue know what happened the day they took out the mortgage, or what they were told, or how it was sold to them, perhaps it would be best to follow your own rules and no speculate about these things.

Speculate about what exactly ?

They were sold a Mortgage with B&B and an Endowment Policy with whoever it was. Either through choice or lack of funds, payments to the endowment policy stopped. As soon as payments stopped, the Endowment Provider would have written to Tom and Sue on a number of occassions. Tom and Sue would also be aware that they were not making payments to the endowment anymore.

Eventually the Endowment provider, closed the policy and as it was assigned to B&B as endowments were back then, the funds from the policy were credited to the mortgage account. This can be seen in the video's made by Tom. Since then, he was fully aware of two important factors. 1) He was no longer paying for an endowment mortgage. 2) His annual statements would have shown that the balance of his mortgage was not decreasing. Indeed, as confirmed by the Godsmark judgement, the balance had increased on a number of occassions (I think it was 5 or 6) as Tom got into arrears and those arrears were added to the balance (capitalised).

Tom has known for the best part of 20 years that there was no repayment vehicle in place to repay the mortgage. He also knew that the payments he was making each month were not reducing the balance. Furthermore, when he first posted on GOODF, he knew that he would have to repay the capital balance..

Those are the facts all supported by evidence

[Footloose52]

What we do not know is what was said to Tom and Sue about the endowment policy when they first applied for the mortgage, that is all.

I'm feeling a little lost on one fact, does anyone recall who the endowment policy was with?

[Bones]

What we do not know is what was said to Tom and Sue about the endowment policy when they first applied for the mortgage, that is all.

I'm feeling a little lost on one fact, does anyone recall who the endowment policy was with?

The below is taken from a video made by Tom and if you look at the bottom credit to the account, you will see it is the endowment policy



The issue is not if Tom was missold an Endowment Mortgage, as that would only come into play if it matured and contrary to what he may have been told it was not enough to repay the mortgage. He could have been told that when it matures, it is worth £1,000,000. The fact is it never matured

The issue is that at the end of the term, as the endowment was cancelled due to non-payment, there was no repayment vehicle to repay the mortgage