Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[#six]

If he wants a jury he needs to commit a crime that carries a minimum sentence of 6 months or more. Unfortunately the only outcome would be that he would be sent to jail for 6 months!

ETA: And this just goes to show how little this lot really understand about the legal system in England and Wales.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The man is a complete failure and the sooner that he realises that he has been responsible for ensuring that he and his wife's future housing needs will be at the mercy of the local authority the better.

As both of them are pensioners, the council only have an obligation to provide them with a one bedroom property. He will be lucky to even get a garden. Chickens will be out of thr question.

Assuming Sue hasn't inherited her mum's house, I think you have a good point. T&S (retired) aren't going to be that big a priority in the "grand scheme" of housing waiting lists and he is "deliberately" (IIRC) homeless. Tom getting a "council flat" could be the next source of legal frivolity in parallel with his repossession antics. Karma says he gets offered an umpteenth floor flat in a neighbourhood where the locals are busy shooting each other over drugs territory.

[doublelong]

With regard to Sue inherited her mum's house (we don't know for sure) as it came to light in the Sept 2015 high court that there was still £90000 outstanding could it be that UKar have decided to write off that debt as not worth the hassle?

[letissier14]

Surely despite the order stopping him going anywhere near his old bungalow, it is only a matter of time before Tom breaks that order and does something really stupid in order to get his day in front of a jury.

[doublelong]

This thread on goofy speaks volumes due to the fact nobody has posted to it! http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... -ubqvkrLIU
I suspect that most users on there have also had enough of the lies and the only reason no one has posted stating this is because they no full well it will be deleted and may lead to a ban.

[Bungle]

Surely despite the order stopping him going anywhere near his old bungalow, it is only a matter of time before Tom breaks that order and does something really stupid in order to get his day in front of a jury.

I haven't the slightest doubt.

You've only got to look at the background of his advisors (Ebert and Guy Taylor). Both of these idiots haven't a pot to piss in. Taylor lost Bodenham Manor and faced endless court hearings for his similar stunts (trying to gain possession after the property was sold). He is personally bankrupt and his discharge from bankruptcy has been stayed due to his failure to abide by the bankruptcy regulations.

It's difficult to know where to start with Ebert. What a bunch of losers.

[Bungle]

The man is a complete failure and the sooner that he realises that he has been responsible for ensuring that he and his wife's future housing needs will be at the mercy of the local authority the better.

As both of them are pensioners, the council only have an obligation to provide them with a one bedroom property. He will be lucky to even get a garden. Chickens will be out of thr question.

Assuming Sue hasn't inherited her mum's house, I think you have a good point.

Tom & Sue need to be very careful here because in court, Tom stated that he and Sue are homeless. If it is the case that they are living in Sue's mothers house, he could face a charge of perjury.

[AndyPandy]

Surely despite the order stopping him going anywhere near his old bungalow, it is only a matter of time before Tom breaks that order and does something really stupid in order to get his day in front of a jury.

The problem for Tom now is that any further stunt involving Fearn Chase will be dealt with under the restraining order.

He's already been found guilty of criminal damage, they don't need anything further, breach of the restraining order is contempt of court - that's dealt with by a Judge never a trial by Jury, he's heading down Eberts route when that silly sod got himself imprisoned for the exact same thing!

Unless he burns the place down it'll never get to a trial.

[letissier14]

Jay Bradley and Colon are so scared for their life because of a troll they decide to make a video about it

https://youtu.be/Xc1a6ELuLR8

[hucknallred]

Funny how is camera is not on when he is attacked by the troll.
Have to call bullshit on this story, he's trying to divert away from the result.

[ArthurWankspittle]

With regard to Sue inherited her mum's house (we don't know for sure) as it came to light in the Sept 2015 high court that there was still £90000 outstanding could it be that UKar have decided to write off that debt as not worth the hassle?

While it is possible, Tom and Sue are some of the small number of people worth pursuing out of a large group. The average punter who got repossessed is likely renting somewhere and has little in the way of valuable assets. Consequently trying to get money out of them is a waste of lots of people's time and bad publicity for banks. With an inheritance, T&S are an easy chance to get all or most of the money back for UKAR and the negative publicity isn't as bad. There are also a whole load of reasons for delay, not least probate and dealing with the will instructions. I'm peripherally involved in something to do with a will at present where I suspect the deceased's estate has one main asset, a house, but the instructions can't be carried out without selling the house to raise the necessary funds to comply with the instructions.
Also, I think it was £98k without the latest costs added on, so likely over £100k.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Tom & Sue need to be very careful here because in court, Tom stated that he and Sue are homeless. If it is the case that they are living in Sue's mothers house, he could face a charge of perjury.

Strictly I thought Tom alone said he was homeless, likely in response to being asked his address. Also, possibly, they haven't inherited the home yet. Also, see my other post. I would be highly amused to learn that Tom doesn't trust lawyers but is happy to have one deal with his mother-in-law's estate.

[Skeleton]

Toms post on want happened in Court falls somewhere between comedy, tragedy and bare face lying IMHO.

[Hi all,

Today I was in court for a charge of criminal damage to my Sue and my house, and once again the judge was very accommodating but I believe that his decision was heavily leaned upon by those above, so here’s the thing.

Well you did not threaten to have him arrested which is your normal opening gambit, so I am guessing he allowed you some leeway to spout your rubbish. Accommodating? Try I know who I am dealing with, let's give him some leeway.

Now to the court case, I have been found guilty of criminally damaging my own house

No you were found guilty of criminally damaging a house that does not belong to you because your family failed to meet the agreement you and your wife signed up to.

and the only reason that the judge gavethis verdict was because the people who believe wrongly that they have purchased our home are the owners, now here’s the problem Judge Spruce admitted in court before all those in attendance that the County Court proceedings were not carried out correctly, Oh! what a shock, 1st he could not explain why there was no evidence of the fee had being paid, and why 2nd the possession claims online are only for a monetary value not for property, and Oh! 3rd he was totally bemused that after three years the County Court cannot produce a verified warrant by a judge + much more.

"The Judge was totally bemused," I have no doubt he was Tom, not only bemused, but quite possibly amused by the defence provided by you and your crack legal team.

Judge Spruce expressed with heavy heart for his decision that he had to give a 12 months Conditional discharge, which actually means be a good boy and don’t do anything wrong, because he had concerns that my 65 years on this planet had not been tarnished by criminal activities unlike his friends in the County Court.

I call bullshit Tom to this whole paragraph. I doubt he was sad to sentence you, Quite possibly he may have been sad though to have had to deal with your ridiculous antics and your refusel to listen to any reasonable advice.

He has also put an injunction on me not to go near 3 Fearn chase Carlton Nottingham which is our home, unfortunately although he is a very nice man he now committed a tort on the Crawford family to which he will have to pay for.

Its not your home Tom, go near it again and Mr nice man may well send you for a holiday in a place you do wish to visit. Keep the empty, never backed up threats up, he almost certainly will.

Now for the good news we are now free to appeal to the Crown Court were we wanted to be so we could produce our evidence to prove that facts that the people who believe they own our home are trespassers and it will cost them dearly as well, and that the County Court has no jurisdiction to take possession over Sue and my home.

The County Court does Tom, despite what your crack legal team of You Tube lawyers and deadbeats who have also been evicted are telling you. May also not be the smartest move, having been told to stay away from the new owners to then publicly pronounce "this will cost them dearly."

On the funny side we had one of our crazy trolls in court, I pointed out to the magistrate was now aware of this crazy man and I believe that the police are looking for him as he did a runner out of the court.

Bullshit Tom, you and your idiot mates such as Ceylon and another habitual liar Jay Bradley, go everywhere armed to film, not one picture of said Troll and a pathetic post from Ceylon he felt his life was in danger whilst hard man Bradley was at the bar in Weatherpersons makes the bullshit smell stronger.

It’s been a very eventful day today we lost in there eyes, but in actual fact we have now moved forward with our case.
We are now heading to the Crown Court and this is when I told the judge where we were now going, the judge smiled for I believe that when he passed his sentence his humanity spoke for once when he said this judgment is done with a heavy heart.
But most importantly I would like to thank all those that came to the court and all those who gave us such support from far-off
Cheers Tom

Victim card to sign off, nice move, I am sure the judge was glad to have the case over with, no wonder he smiled.

[hucknallred]

Is it possible to download the Judge's sentencing remarks? I had a search but only found the Merlin judgment that was the same day.
Is it a case that only serious stuff is published online. Unrelated to Tom - I remember having a read of some of the celebrity ones, notably Rolf Harris & Max Clifford

[FatGambit]

Someone will have to pony up for it, the Merlin stuff you've found is the H&S's report, they always release those themselves (I assume you found the redacted version, if not I know some people who woukd be very interested in seeing it lol).

[Gregg]

In the US at least, not only do we not have juries at the appeals level, ever, parties are not in almost all cases allowed to introduce evidence on appeal. An appeal is not a retrial of the original case, it is in effect a trial of the fairness of the trial. Also, it is very common for appeals in the USA to be decided totally based upon the written motion, the court often feeling no need to hear any oral argument at all.

I had just assumed the UK was like this. If it is, even remotely the way your courts work, Tom is more screwed than he even knows...

[FatGambit]

I think it goes something like you can appeal on the grounds new evidence has come to light, and then present that evidence. You don't appeal because you don't like the verdict then present new evidence Perry Mason (or is it Bull now?) style that you hid away at the original hearing.

[notorial dissent]

yeah, here an appeal here is basically a trial of the original trial and the applications of teh law and the laws used at the trial, sometimes the judge doesn't know what they are doing and gets it all wrong, or applies the wrong law or standards, but usually there isn't that sort of things and it comes down to interpretation of the law and how it should have been applied, always before a judge or panel of judges.

[SoLongCeylon]

There is lots of speculation regarding the inheritance of Sue's Mum's House ( sorry if too many apostrohe's') and the possibility of it being pursued to clear off his debts.

Perhaps Sue's Mum ( for whom Tom has a death sheet remember ) lived in a council run sheltered housing complex in a suburb of Nottingham Close to Cartlon and therefore has little by way of capital to be inherited?

[hucknallred]

the Merlin stuff you've found is the H&S's report, they always release those themselves

Err no, the Judge's remarks:

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content ... emarks.pdf