The Crawfords Keep Looking For A Unicorn

[SteveUK]

I think the only active legal battle is the one his mind, Crawford v Reality.

Reality already won, a long time ago.

I think this is his long awaited appeal to the supreme Court.

[notorial dissent]

I think the only active legal battle is the one his mind, Crawford v Reality.

Reality already won, a long time ago.

I think this is his long awaited appeal to the supreme Court.

I'd say he has no leave to appeal and is well beyond the time limit.

[longdog]

I think the only active legal battle is the one his mind, Crawford v Reality.

Reality already won, a long time ago.

I think this is his long awaited appeal to the supreme Court.

It's the O'Bonkers class action fantasy nonsense isn't it?

[JimUk1]

Tom still in fantasy land

Sounds like Tom is upset he wasn’t included in the 2016 Honours List, for services to “truthing”. Sad really, he’s going to spend the remaining years just bitter, twisted and full of resentment all because he believed strangers on the internet.

[Gregg]

Sounds like Tom is upset he wasn’t included in the 2016 Honours List, for services to “truthing”. Sad really, he’s going to spend the remaining years just bitter, twisted and full of resentment and homeless all because he believed strangers on the internet.

FIFY

[TheNewSaint]

I wonder if Tom is going to be one of O'Bonkers' lead plaintiffs. And if so, will he get stuck with costs and/or sanctions when this is inevitably laughed out of court.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I wonder if Tom is going to be one of O'Bonkers' lead plaintiffs. And if so, will he get stuck with costs and/or sanctions when this is inevitably laughed out of court.

Tom is actually an ideal lead plaintiff:
It's all Tom's got in the way of a case.
Tom would just be a sock puppet for O'Bonkers in court (which happened previously with his own case).
Tom is judgement proof. He is still on the hook for about £100,000 from his previous escapades IIRC.

[AndyPandy]

I wonder if Tom is going to be one of O'Bonkers' lead plaintiffs. And if so, will he get stuck with costs and/or sanctions when this is inevitably laughed out of court.

Tom is actually an ideal lead plaintiff:
It's all Tom's got in the way of a case.
Tom would just be a sock puppet for O'Bonkers in court (which happened previously with his own case).
Tom is judgement proof. He is still on the hook for about £100,000 from his previous escapades IIRC.

Exactly, he’s already on the hook for £100k, he’s got nothing they can take so what does it matter to him if Court costs run into £1000’s. All he’s going to get here is an indefinite Vexatious Litigant order against him.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Then O'Bonkers will tell the suckers they were so close but the Illuminati/Powers/Jews/Pope/BlackHats/Aliens/Masons blocked it but they will succeed next time, just send money.

I had a look back through the Crawford saga and one thing I noticed is I can only find one comment of Tom's about the endowment being cancelled when it was. He kept raising the issue but never addressed the information in the court hearing that it was clearly cancelled in 1992. Other than he did say at one point it was cancelled 10th July 1992 but neither he or Sue were told (I leave the reader to ponder the logic of that statement) he never addressed or challenged the court record, only kept raising other claims about when the endowment ended or what happened to it.

[longdog]

I wonder if Tom is going to be one of O'Bonkers' lead plaintiffs. And if so, will he get stuck with costs and/or sanctions when this is inevitably laughed out of court.

Tom is actually an ideal lead plaintiff:
It's all Tom's got in the way of a case.
Tom would just be a sock puppet for O'Bonkers in court (which happened previously with his own case).
Tom is judgement proof. He is still on the hook for about £100,000 from his previous escapades IIRC.

Exactly, he’s already on the hook for £100k, he’s got nothing they can take so what does it matter to him if Court costs run into £1000’s. All he’s going to get here is an indefinite Vexatious Litigant order against him.

In circumstances where a litigant, particularly ones with a history of bringing claims with no legal merit at all, is bankrupt I believe there's a procedure whereby the respondent can ask for an order that claimant deposit enough cash with the court in advance to cover legal costs before it proceeds. No cash... No case.

[mufc1959]

In circumstances where a litigant, particularly ones with a history of bringing claims with no legal merit at all, is bankrupt I believe there's a procedure whereby the respondent can ask for an order that claimant deposit enough cash with the court in advance to cover legal costs before it proceeds. No cash... No case.

Even though the potential claim is for the court to order that the Land Registry must cancel the mortgage, this isn't what the freetards want - they want compensation, so they get a free house and free money. For a claim over £100,000 and up to £200,000 the court fee is 5% of the claim (including interest) and for a claim of over £200,000 the fee is £10,000.

Claimants who qualify can get a fee remission. That's how the likes of Neelu can continue to clog up the courts with idiotic applications that are doomed to failure.

https://www.gov.uk/get-help-with-court-fees

But even if it got past that hurdle and the proceedings were issued, there'd be an immediate application to strike out the case on the basis that it disclosed no cause of action and/or had no realistic prospect of success. If for some inexplicable reason the case was allowed to proceed, any sensible solicitor would apply to the court requesting security for costs from the other party.

[Normal Wisdom]

Then O'Bonkers will tell the suckers they were so close but the Illuminati/Powers/Jews/Pope/BlackHats/Aliens/Masons blocked it but they will succeed next time, just send money.

I had a look back through the Crawford saga and one thing I noticed is I can only find one comment of Tom's about the endowment being cancelled when it was. He kept raising the issue but never addressed the information in the court hearing that it was clearly cancelled in 1992. Other than he did say at one point it was cancelled 10th July 1992 but neither he or Sue were told (I leave the reader to ponder the logic of that statement) he never addressed or challenged the court record, only kept raising other claims about when the endowment ended or what happened to it.

Indeed. The endowment policy situation has never been explained. I still ask Tom about it whenever I get a chance. I cling to the belief that he and Sue never understood what it was so that when money became tight in the early 90s they stopped paying for what they saw as an unnecessary insurance policy. It was subsequently cancelled and I suppose it's possible that neither the policy provider or the lender wrote to explain what had happened assuming incorrectly, that the Crawford's knew what they were doing. At the time, the Crawford's wouldn't have noticed any difference and would have continued to make the mortgage interest payments to the lender.

From memory it was a few years later that Sue approached the lender on some matter regarding the mortgage and I recall Tom's plaintiff bleating that she had been told that the mortgage would "never be repaid". Even then I don't think he understood what had happened and being the pig headed idiot that he is, immediately put up the barriers to any sensible discussion about a solution choosing instead to interpret it as some kind of gross mistake or fraud on the part of the lender.

The rest is pretty well documented.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

And this is where his decent into Freeman stupidity has cost him.

There was indeed a history of endowment policy mis-selling during the 1980s based on the idea that the stock market was on a massive upward spike so that there was no risk of a shortfall. However a "market correction" in around 1987 suddenly shone a spotlight on the dodgy selling. I know a friend on mine in 1990 was given stark warnings about the risks by his mortgage broker so by then they knew the game was up. I also seem to remember that there was a second wave of dodgy endowment selling but that was more a collusion between brokers and buyers who didn't have enough documented income rather than general industry practice.

Anyway, back to the stupidity. You could indeed make a claim about mis-sold endowments. Lenders were legally obliged to send to warning letters about shortfalls whilst there was still time to do something about it.

For a house with sufficient equity this normally would mean remortgaging it for the value of the shortfall with a repayment type mortgage. Crawford chose to ignore all this and instead went for accusations of mortgage fraud egged on by the usual crowd of imbeciles and refused to co-operate which like Neelu would end with repossession. This is evident if you follow Neelu's repossession. It was immediately after she got her warning letter that she tried to pay it off with Swissindo M1 voucher and then started getting abusive with them rather than try to sort out the relatively small amount in relation to the equity on her property or make a mis-selling claim.

If Crawford was to believed at face value (but personally I think he and his wife knew exactly what they were doing when they cancelled the endowment payments) then he would have had a good claim for mis-selling and compensation. However, by going down the path he did he dropped off the end of the three year time limit on making a claim once you receive the shortfall warning letter.

[ArthurWankspittle]

To add to what m'learned feathery friend and Mr Wisdom said. Early 90s especially 90-92 were really bad economically. As I pointed out elsewhere cancelling or more likely just stopping paying the endowment would not be unusual in those times. Further, the Crawfords were only about 3 years into the mortgage, so the lender wouldn't be panicking at this stage (lots of people doing it, lots of time left to bring mortgage issues back into line). Late 90s (1999 in the Crawfords case) and all those crap endowments from 10-15 years ago are now showing they have no chance of repaying the capital on the mortgages. Lenders are now contacting people asking about what they are planning to do and talking about options available. I think there was a mortgage lenders or government "directive" to attempt to sort this out. This is where the Crawfords ignore or turn down alternatives, and the B&B probably have documentation to cover themselves against a mis-selling case.

[aesmith]

From my experience 1992 was well before the endowment shortfalls started to appear. In '95 we were still being advised to go endowment for the additional borrowing when we moved house (we didn't) and I'm sure it was a few years yet before we received the "amber" warning about the original policy taken out in '85. They wouldn't have had a hope of making a mis-selling case 8 or 9 years after simply stopping paying the premiums. Even if they did, what would they have got? From what I understand from people who've been through this process, the mis-selling claim looked at what you would have paid for a repayment mortgage (capital, interest and term insurance) vs what you paid with the endowment (interest and premiums). It didn't compensate for the endowment shortfall, it compensated for the decision to go endowment instead of repayment. One guy at work got £8K lump sum, plus of course he had to pay the mortgage on repayment terms from that point on.

[AnOwlCalledSage]

Even if they did, what would they have got? From what I understand from people who've been through this process, the mis-selling claim looked at what you would have paid for a repayment mortgage (capital, interest and term insurance) vs what you paid with the endowment (interest and premiums). It didn't compensate for the endowment shortfall, it compensated for the decision to go endowment instead of repayment.

Absolutely correct. "Compensation" was worked out on what the difference was between your endowment shortfall and what it would take to get you in the position if, knowing all the facts, you'd have taken out a repayment mortgage instead. It was not meant to compensate you if it would have resulted in you not taking out a mortgage at all.

I compare it to my private pension mis-selling compensation. They had to buy me back into my company pension as if I'd joined on the day of my initial consultation because they failed to tell me that I would have been better off joining that instead. It was not an "untold riches" compensation deal!

[longdog]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that under common law and Magnum Cartridge twelevety hundred an blibbelly blib I am only entitled to compensation that reflects my actual loss and not a free house, unlimited wealth and a night of rampant conjugal unpleasantness with Johnny Depp, Noomi Rapace, a tube of wintergreen liniment and half a kilo of amphetamine sulphate?

I think I'd better run this by William Edward Equity Lawyer Ellis before I take your word for it.

[SoLongCeylon]

Craig the businessman gets himself in the national paper for doing a good deed. Good for him. His business interests included running a Ghost Hunt. I wonder if he could also organise a Unicorn hunt.......


The Mirror is a national paper :

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/s ... ts-section

Looks like the storey has been directly lifted from the Nottingham News

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/not ... 1534062700


In the comments section of the Nottingham News someone has helpfully left this :

Hmmm Craig Crawford... the guy who helped his dad loose his home, used to run a dodgy affiliate earning site and now runs what looks like a dodgy site allowing access to illegal streams via Roku....if he is helping out then it's to either get his name in the paper or for some other benefit to him and not the person he is helping.

[daveBeeston]

Craig the businessman gets himself in the national paper for doing a good deed. Good for him. His business interests included running a Ghost Hunt. I wonder if he could also organise a Unicorn hunt.......


The Mirror is a national paper :

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/s ... ts-section

Looks like the storey has been directly lifted from the Nottingham News

https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/not ... 1534062700


In the comments section of the Nottingham News someone has helpfully left this :

Hmmm Craig Crawford... the guy who helped his dad loose his home, used to run a dodgy affiliate earning site and now runs what looks like a dodgy site allowing access to illegal streams via Roku....if he is helping out then it's to either get his name in the paper or for some other benefit to him and not the person he is helping.

That will be me that left that comment, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if the whole thing is made up just to advertise his business.

[hucknallred]

Come on, own up....

GuyTaylorsGhost
Well Done Craig raise some money for homeless pensioners who have lost their homes in the last 4 years - like ya Mar and Par!! Old Man Crawford completely blew £140k equity he had in his bungalow but never mind, they all won.