The Crawfords Keep Looking For A Unicorn

[TheNewSaint]

As one of Tom's pointless arguments is that B&B changed his mortgage without telling him (albeit it may be that they told Sweaty Sue and she failed to tell Hatted Tom) do you think he understands that if a mortgage is interest only and any endowment was cancelled, then the house is not paid for?

Tom's first post on GOODF asked how he could get out of paying the remaining 40,000 GBP or whatever it was, so clearly he understood this going in.

And the Godsmark judgment settled all this. Both sides agreed that the mortgage terms were not changed. The Crawfords long knew there was no mechanism to pay off the principal, and refused B&B's attempts to re-do their mortgage to resolve this problem.

It's just another shiny object to placate his idiot supporters.

[NYGman]

Do you think he understands that if a mortgage is interest only and any endowment was cancelled, then the house is not paid for?

No. He thinks there are three types of mortgages, 1) Endowment, 2) interest Only, & 3) Repayment.

From what I can understand, he believes that he had an endowment mortgage, not an interest only mortgage. Hence his position that the mortgage was changed from an endowment mortgage to an interest only. While at some point it was changed to repayment, he contacted the bank, told them they made a mistake, so they reverted it, and sent flowers and chocolates to apologise. The switched it back to an interest only mortgage, and I believe this is where TC gets the idea his loan was changed.

What Tom failed to realize is that he or Sue stopped paying on the Endowment, leaving only an interest only mortgage. The bank, did the right thing switching him to a repayment mortgage, but unfortunately TC didn't understand what was going on.

In one of the many other threads I think we came up with the following:

1) Sue canceled the endowment when they started to have money issues, due to TC's illness
2) The Crawfords didn't understand that the endowment was what would pay the principal upon mortgage expiration
3) The Crawfords had no clue that the mortgage was just interest only, and that the endowment was with another company, and payments to them were not optional
4) The Crawfords didn't understand what the bank was telling them with respect to the shortfall on the endowment.

[ArthurWankspittle]

While at some point it was changed to repayment, he contacted the bank, told them they made a mistake, so they reverted it, and sent flowers and chocolates to apologise. The switched it back to an interest only mortgage, and I believe this is where TC gets the idea his loan was changed.

I don't think B&B would have changed it to a repayment without getting Tom and Sue's agreement in writing. I don't think it was ever changed. The offer to change it was there but the event never took place. The flowers and chocolates were an apology for dragging them (or rather her) to the office to discuss the situation, with Tom getting his knickers in a twist over the change and refusing to understand the situation and the reason for the meeting(s). I now wonder if Sue realised it was better to change the mortgage but Tom wouldn't have anything to do with it. Tom goes off on a rant and B&B pacify him via Sue by the gifts.

[letissier14]

The Bank never changed his mortgage from interest only to repayment, and then back again.

The only repayment part he had, was on the extra £5k he borrowed early on to do the bungalow up.

[NYGman]

Fair enough, if really is hard to keep up with the facts, when they keep changing.

[Chaos]

As one of Tom's pointless arguments is that B&B changed his mortgage without telling him (although it may be that they told Sweaty Sue and she failed to tell Hatted Tom) do you think he genuinely understands that if a mortgage is interest only and any endowment was cancelled, then the house is not paid for?

all one has to do is remember his first post on the freeloadeer site that he knew the principle was due and he wanted a way to get out of it.

[notorial dissent]

Except of course that he admitted in court that he knew about it, and the judge went over it with him in court. Convenient memory.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Fair enough, if really is hard to keep up with the facts, when Tom keeps changing them.

FTFY.

[getoutofdebtfools]

As one of Tom's pointless arguments is that B&B changed his mortgage without telling him (although it may be that they told Sweaty Sue and she failed to tell Hatted Tom) do you think he genuinely understands that if a mortgage is interest only and any endowment was cancelled, then the house is not paid for?

all one has to do is remember his first post on the freeloadeer site that he knew the principle was due and he wanted a way to get out of it.

A very good point Chaos.

[notorial dissent]

In other words, he's lying, again, and lying about lying.

[Normal Wisdom]

As others have said, B&B did not change the mortgage. There was a slight complication because they also borrowed a few thousand pounds in addition to the original mortgage and that was a repayment type. However, leaving that to one side for clarity; as we know Tom took out an endowment mortgage i.e. an interest only loan and endowment policy.

The endowment policy premiums were paid from Sue's account but for reasons never revealed payment of these ceased in 1991. My guess is that the Crawfrauds were short of money and not realising what the endowment policy was for, thought they could sacrifice this "insurance policy" without any risk.

After some months without payment of premiums and I'm betting having their letters to the Crawfrauds ignored, the policy provider "surrendered" the policy and paid the minimal proceeds of the policy (c. £178) into the mortgage account.

A few years later, the lack of an endowment policy was raised in a discussion between B&B and Sue. B&B wrote to the Crawfrauds offering the very sensible idea of converting the mortgage to a repayment type so that the original loan could be repaid within the 15 years of the mortgage loan period that was left. I think this is where Tom (who generally left these things to Sue) became involved. Completely misunderstanding what was being suggested he ignored the letter suggesting the change of mortgage type.

The siuation drifted on unresolved for a few more years until Sue again raised the issue with B&B. Tom describes this as her talking to B&B about some more insurance. The B&B branch manager got totally confused by Sue's complaint and thought that the Crawfruads had actually accepted the proposal made a few years earlier to change the mortgage to a repayment type and that B&B had mistakenly failed to act upon it. This was the reason for the flowers and chocolates. The letter from B&B that accompanied the gifts which Tom characterises as identifying that they had a "part and part" mortgages actually recognised that they had an endowment / interest only type for the main loan and a repayment type for the additional small loan taken out later. Subsequently B&B discovered that of course the Crawfrauds had not actually agreed to the change the main loan to a repayment and indeed continued to ignore the suggestion to do so until it was too late to have any effect.

After that followed the arrears of interest payments, Tom's illness, the claims of the "lost" endowment, the first appeal against the possession order, the complaint to the FCA and eventually Tom's cry for help to GOODF that began the final descent into madness.

[Gregg]

But the simple and undeniable fact is that the mortgage that was the one foreclosed upon was indeed the ORIGINAL mortgage that had been in place from the get-go. Not a loan that had been changed and thus would have been originated at a later date, and it was in fact an interest only mortgage, signed by Tom and Sue, when they first bought the house.

Full stop. If they had "changed" the mortgage, it wouldn't be the original one that was in arrears, and as it bore their signatures could hardly have been changed without their knowledge. So yes, the only alternatives are, Tom and Sue are hopelessly stupid or Tom and Sue are lying deadbeats. The second does not in any way rule out the first, of course.

[JimUk1]

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... OZfrjx4XYU

I believe this is the original thread on GOODF?

Appears someone (Tom possibly) has removed the original post, 2 years later!

If that's not a sign of out-right guilt I don't know what is!

Also, check out Toms response on page 2;

Thank you Zarkie, We don't have a court hearing as my first post explains, we just have to keep paying till the 25 years are up, four month time, then they will require us to pay infull the mortgage that we took out 25 years ago

[littleFred]

It's groundhog day, all over again.

[NYGman]

I believe the initial post is archived somewhere in the many pages of the TC Train wreck of threads we have here

[TheNewSaint]

It really is Groundhog Day, because all this crap was hashed out in the Godsmark ruling. Tom's just presenting it to his followers as if it were new.

[doublelong]

Groundhog Day 4.1
Just the fact that TC felt it necessary to delete his first post on goofy says it all. He knew damned well the mess he was in and how he got there. I personally think that is more damming for TC than the Godsmark judgement as it shows he clearly understands the position he was in and fraud had nothing to do with it, it was the lack of an endowment policy.

[TheNewSaint]

Here's the text of the original post, as archived by letissier14 here:

Postby tommc » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:00 am

Anyone help? if so here's our story, We moved to Nottingham 1988, 24 and a half years ago, and we bought a small house where we brought up 3 Kids, but now we are fighting to keep our house.
Bradford and Bingley messed up our mortgage, they changed it from an endowment without our instructions into an interest only in 1999, and now claim they lost our papers, now we've come to nearly the end of our mortgage and still owe all the money it cost in the first place, we have been chasing them for years to sort it, the six-month time period to contact the Ombudsman is also up as we didn't know there was a time limit. it has now come to a head, I caught cancer two years ago, we got behind with our mortgage as I was unable to work, so as a good customer they took us to court, but fortunately our family raised the money, but the Judge still kept a ruling that if we missed a payment B&B could repossess. Our question to you is can we send them a promissory note to clear our debts as we have only four months left in our house, will never rise that much money, if you have any ideas what we might be able to do, any help will be appreciated.
Thanks a lot Tom.

[JimUk1]

I believe the initial post is archived somewhere in the many pages of the TC Train wreck of threads we have here

It certainly was an interesting read for the casual observer like me.

[notorial dissent]

It really is Groundhog Day, because all this crap was hashed out in the Godsmark ruling. Tom's just presenting it to his followers as if it were new.

Considering that most of them have memory capabilities and IQ of the average gnat, he has an easy job of it.