UK - Tom Crawford - Eviction

[YiamCross]

Clear indication of how unfettered access to morons with attitude inevitably leads to disaster.

This is where I believe the law or the courts should be taking steps to curtail the activity of Tom's advisers by refusing them the rights of audience.

No, let them appear. But publish all the judgements on http://www.bailii.org so that the scale of their incompetence is visible to all. The circulation of the Godsmark judgement was vitally important in discrediting TC's lies (to himself and to others).

A McKenzie friend has no rights of audience, only to take notes and advise the Litigant in Person. I have found that a magistrate/judge will often allow a McKF to speak directly to the court as it's a lot easier than telling Peter to tell Paul.

The court can prevent the McKF attending if they have reason to believe they will disrupt the proceedings but they're a bit wary, so far, of doing so as it might have human rights implications.

The only thin I can see coming out of Crawford like court omni-shambles is increase opposition to McKFs hence making it harder for sensible LiPs to have assistance in court. As is usual, the selfish idiots screw it up for genuine people everywhere.

[fat frank]

the whole Crawford case, was a waste of the courts time, a lie from the start

[guilty]

Not just any old chicken - it was the pet chicken 'Betty'!

Tom Crawford

We have received a reply to our recent e-mail to Ellen @Walker Morris I am unable to discuss its contents however here is Sue's reply

C.c To Whom it may concern

Dear Ellen

I write to you regarding your company's most recent correspondence in response to our "Notice" dated 15th July 2015 marked strictly confidential which no one has put their name too and which in itself speaks volumes.

Once more in response to our valid requests and in response to your own claims to provide the correct DOCUMENTATION OR EVIDENCE you have produced ZILCH !!!!

Implied admission absence a response

The manner to which you and your accomplices have conducted this unwarranted unlawful (and illegal if you so wish to use that word) Eviction in the full public gaze is quite frankly irresponsible and extremely alarming and is of public concern.

The telephone contact number which was provided me on the day of eviction 2ND JULY 2015 and handed to me by a Police Lia son officer written from your office has been unobtainable and witnessed by the Public. I therefore draw your attention to the word FACT and I highlight the word FACT due to the FACT that is something that YOU and YOUR AGENTS are evidently lacking in and the FACT is you are in breach of the tort interference of goods act 1977.

I am fed up to the back teeth with the reckless care conspiring way and lack of due diligence or consideration and I could go on and on that you have publicly displayed in not only respect to our property/belongings/assets including the care of our animals in which we are still awaiting the safe return of my daughters pet chicken Betty worryingly the other pet chickens were eventually returned after 4 days with their crops empty also what of the the pond fish ? and what of the negligent treatment you have dealt me and the family regards the recent death of my mother who's funeral arrangements are yet to be confirmed and whom belongings I had just received prior to the UNWARRANTED EVICTION as her next of kin to be distributed amongst family members and also more importantly evidential notes and evidence taken regarding my Mothers death (which my husband Tom asked for you to provide as a matter of urgency ) during her care at Fleming ward in the city Hospital on 30th May 2015 and also during a particularly stressful time of my Mothers recent post mortem investigation and in breach of the Vulnerable persons act....

I remind you that we have not been evicted but deprived of our property unlawfully FACT Protection from Eviction Act and Harassment act 1977 and FACT of our Human Rights.

Along with our requests in our Notice 15th July 2015 by return provide A copy of the VALID POSSESSION ORDER of the COURT, I also notice to date as requested that you have provided us with no itinerary of our belongings and it has now been documented and witnessed by members of the public & Police that our belongings are not only leaving our home by the lorry load but also being used openly by burglars you have unlawfully occupied in our home....

Sue Crawford

19th July 2015

[PeanutGallery]

Not just any old chicken - it was the pet chicken 'Betty'!

Thank god it wasn't Speckled Jim though, Melchett would have been apoplectic.

Tom Crawford
[...] and what of the negligent treatment you have dealt me and the family regards the recent death of my mother who's funeral arrangements are yet to be confirmed and whom belongings I had just received prior to the UNWARRANTED EVICTION as her next of kin to be distributed amongst family members and also more importantly evidential notes and evidence taken regarding my Mothers death (which my husband Tom asked for you to provide as a matter of urgency ) during her care at Fleming ward in the city Hospital on 30th May 2015 and also during a particularly stressful time of my Mothers recent post mortem investigation and in breach of the Vulnerable persons act....

Ok Sue, I get that you are a bit peeved and y'know sorry for your loss but look on the bright side at least your mother didn't die knowing you were homeless thanks to your failure to pay the endowment policy. Now in regard to the Vulnerable Persons Act, that's not an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. It is an Act in Manitoba, which is one of the fine provinces of the great nation of Canada, but it's aim is to protect the right of Canadians living with a mental disability, unfortunately you don't count first off you aren't a Canadian and secondly you don't live with a mental disability, you live with Tom (who doesn't count as a mental disability despite what some of the more unkind posters on here think).

I remind you that we have not been evicted but deprived of our property unlawfully FACT Protection from Eviction Act and Harassment act 1977 and FACT of our Human Rights.

No Sue, you have been evicted. There is quite an easy way to tell this. Look at the room you are in, is it your house? Can you go back to your house? No. Well then you were evicted. Now the Protection From Eviction Act is an actual act of Parliament, but it doesn't help you. The reason why it doesn't help you is that it provides protection for TENANTS, not people like you who decided not to repay the capital on their mortgage after having paid most of the interest for a long time.

I don't really see how the Harassment Act comes into play (you've found another one two out of three isn't bad) but the reason the Protection From Harassment Act 1997 (to give it the full title Parliament did) isn't going to help you is that it's reasonable for a bank (like UKAR) to evict someone (like you) when they don't pay back the endowment policy because they cancelled it back in the 90's by not paying it (like you did).

In regard to the Human Rights issue, I'm guessing you are going to try and argue an Article 8 breach. Article 8 is the right to private life, only big roadblock, it's subject to restrictions as deemed necessary by the law. Now the law, that was all the Judges in all the court cases you didn't win said it was right that your house should be repossessed so as to allow the bank to get back the capital you owed because you stopped paying the endowment.

Along with our requests in our Notice 15th July 2015 by return provide A copy of the VALID POSSESSION ORDER of the COURT, I also notice to date as requested that you have provided us with no itinerary of our belongings and it has now been documented and witnessed by members of the public & Police that our belongings are not only leaving our home by the lorry load but also being used openly by burglars you have unlawfully occupied in our home....

I think you've had a copy of the possession order, Tom said so when he was outside court talking about the great victory. He said it was a dead duck. Given that statement I have to ask, are you absolutely sure Betty was alive when Tom last saw her? I mean he does seem to have trouble telling dead birds from live ones.

[guilty]

Now in regard to the Vulnerable Persons Act, that's not an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom. It is an Act in Manitoba, which is one of the fine provinces of the great nation of Canada, but it's aim is to protect the right of Canadians living with a mental disability

There is a UK act entitled Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, but this is aimed at children and adults in care.

[fat frank]

the act they are referring to is the guide lines for taking control of goods, where it classes certain people as vulnerable, so bailiffs cant touch them

[Jeffrey]

We have received a reply to our recent e-mail to Ellen @Walker Morris I am unable to discuss its contents

I bet 5 million WeRe units that they're completely free to discuss the contents or even post the reply but they won't post it because it makes the Crawfords look bad.

[fat frank]

everything the crawfords do, makes them look bad,

[guilty]

the act they are referring to is the guide lines for taking control of goods, where it classes certain people as vulnerable, so bailiffs cant touch them

Ah! In that case the Crawfords may have a point - one of the definitions of a 'vulnerable person' in the Ministry of Justice guidelines is:

those who have obvious difficulty in understanding, speaking or reading English.

[PeanutGallery]

the act they are referring to is the guide lines for taking control of goods, where it classes certain people as vulnerable, so bailiffs cant touch them

I take it you mean section 10 of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, this does contain an exemption to prevent enforcement on a person who is a child or a 'vulnerable person'. Unfortunately the act does not provide us with a definition of what a "vulnerable person" is, however I would suggest that a person recently bereaved would likely not qualify for protection under the act. I think the courts would be loathe, as a matter of public policy, to interpret the phrase widely as it would risk defeating the purpose of the act and be contrary to the public interest.

I would therefor think that the courts would look to interpret vulnerable person somewhat narrowly and would probably look to other acts of Parliament for a suitable definition for "vulnerable person", the first of which would most likely be Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 the page linked provides a rather clear definition for a vulnerable adult. Of the 10 listed criteria none apply to a person in mourning.

I do think that trying to pass Sue of as being vulnerable because the house was in mourning as being somewhat disingenuous. She did not seem especially "vulnerable" during the eviction videos, she was in a combative and argumentative mood, had she been vulnerable I suggest she would have acted in an entirely different manner.

This argument is an attempt to place a meaning on the law that simply is not their, which I realise is not a shocking proposition when it comes to the Crawfords.

Edit to add.

Apparently I am mistaken, the ministry of justice do indeed publish guidelines which list the recently bereaved as being in the vulnerable person category, it's available here for people to read: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ndards.pdf.

However it is for the bailiff to determine if the person is suffering from a vulnerability. I would still maintain that Sue was not incapable of looking after herself, she was plainly not crippled by grief.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I believe it is a FACT that when people begin to write letters using the word FACT multiple times and they write FACT using capital letters they are just one step away from writing letters with a yellow crayon.
FACT.

[PeterPan]

Sue's mother passed away on 30th May, not as recent as they are implying!

[PeanutGallery]

Aye Rumple, they'd be licking the windows if they still had a house to go with them.

[guilty]

I would therefore think that the courts would look to interpret vulnerable person somewhat narrowly

The broad definition of a ‘vulnerable adult’ referred to in the 1997 Consultation Paper Who decides?, issued by the Lord Chancellor’s Department, is a person:
“who is or may be in need of community care services by reason of mental or other disability, age or illness; and who is or may be unable to take care of him or herself, or unable to protect him or herself against significant harm or exploitation”.

[guilty]

From ETFOTB:

Sarah Hopewell
Some morning entertainment.... found this on a fan page lol how thick are the trolls on here?? Its plain and simple, if Burglar and Bungle had not screwed up the endowment, which they say was cashed in after 4 years, for £178 when roughly 14k would of been paid into it at £300 a month.... although they have no paper work to prove it, or anything else come to that!!! admitted what they had done with the rest of the money paid over the remaining 21 years... there would not be a debt to clear??? Instead they steal the house too!! Wonder if the trolls would be saying the same if it happened to them through no fault of their own??

To which Amanda replies:

thank god for people like you with a brain

[letissier14]

I don't think they would have been paying £300 a month endowment on a £41k mortgage.

I had an endowment mortgage in 1989 for £67.5k and the endowment was £105 a month

I would think Amanda would be hard pushed to tell you what day of the week it is, let alone work out the facts from fiction.

[longdog]

I would imagine the courts would find bereavement to be just an unpleasant part of life's rich tapestry and the only way it would have any effect on a vulnerable person is if they were vulnerable before hand.

Somebody who is a borderline vulnerable person might be pushed over the line by the loss of a close family member who was a central caregiver but that clearly doesn't apply in the Crawford's case.

The cynical use of a dead granny and a dead dog is just that... Cynical, and you would hope, beneath the dignity of most people.

PS: My father died three years ago... Or was it four?.. Something like that anyway so anybody disagreeing with me is a heartless bastard and should be thoroughly ashamed.

[Syf]

£300 per month over 300 months is £90,000 so where did they get £130,000 from

[fat frank]

the act they are referring to is the guide lines for taking control of goods, where it classes certain people as vulnerable, so bailiffs cant touch them

I take it you mean section 10 of The Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, this does contain an exemption to prevent enforcement on a person who is a child or a 'vulnerable person'. Unfortunately the act does not provide us with a definition of what a "vulnerable person" is, however I would suggest that a person recently bereaved would likely not qualify for protection under the act. I think the courts would be loathe, as a matter of public policy, to interpret the phrase widely as it would risk defeating the purpose of the act and be contrary to the public interest.

I would therefor think that the courts would look to interpret vulnerable person somewhat narrowly and would probably look to other acts of Parliament for a suitable definition for "vulnerable person", the first of which would most likely be Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 the page linked provides a rather clear definition for a vulnerable adult. Of the 10 listed criteria none apply to a person in mourning.

I do think that trying to pass Sue of as being vulnerable because the house was in mourning as being somewhat disingenuous. She did not seem especially "vulnerable" during the eviction videos, she was in a combative and argumentative mood, had she been vulnerable I suggest she would have acted in an entirely different manner.

This argument is an attempt to place a meaning on the law that simply is not their, which I realise is not a shocking proposition when it comes to the Crawfords.

Edit to add.

Apparently I am mistaken, the ministry of justice do indeed publish guidelines which list the recently bereaved as being in the vulnerable person category, it's available here for people to read: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ndards.pdf.

However it is for the bailiff to determine if the person is suffering from a vulnerability. I would still maintain that Sue was not incapable of looking after herself, she was plainly not crippled by grief.

I think its section 70-77 that say what is a vulnerable person, but this is a eviction and I don't think they apply

[rumpelstilzchen]

Can we just do a tally-up of the reasons why Tom should not have had his house stolen.

The grandmother.
The dog.
Betty the chicken.
Oh, the fish. Must not forget the fish.

Compelling argument that.