UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[Normal Wisdom]

2) He reads some extracts from the letter from B&B which appears to confirm that the mortgage has been changed to a "part endowment, part capital and repayment basis" without his authority. I'm not sure how this would work but presumably one replaces the other going forward. The date of the letter is not shown but it provides a calculation of the account as at 31st December 1998 had that mortgage been changed to a capital repayment plan from 1995 so I think we can assume this letter was received in early 1999.

Visible at 19m 01s, it is dated 29 Jan 1999.

At 7m 05s, we see Tom's first statement, for 1988. The debits are for interest only. Not interest plus capital, or interest plus endowment. Likewise his later statements. If Tom was paying an endowment policy, it was a separate arrangement.

Notably absent from Tom's explanation is who the endowment policy was with, or how much he paid every month, or when he stopped.

It seems to me that B&B realised (or believed) that Tom's endowment policy wasn't on schedule to repay the entire capital, so they unilaterally started taking payments towards repaying the capital. Tom objected to this.

You're obviously quicker on the "freeze" button than me! This was the information that he always contended arose in 2000!

As you say, the statement clearly says "Mortgage Type - Endowment Interest Only". Speaking from my experience as I had an endowment mortgage taken out a year before Tom, although the bank made all the initial arrangements, the endowment premium is paid entirely separately and as far as I can recall, direct to the Life Assurance company.

I've challenged Tom to provide the information about the endowment policy on several occasions but he has never responded. It's interesting that when he shows the statements he makes a point of stressing that it was an endowment mortgage as if that answered the questions that have obviously been posed to him. Of course it just highlights even more the need for information on the endowment policy. I really don't think Tom understood how the endowment mortgage worked when he began it and he doesn't seem any wiser now.

[Normal Wisdom]

2) He reads some extracts from the letter from B&B which appears to confirm that the mortgage has been changed to a "part endowment, part capital and repayment basis" without his authority. I'm not sure how this would work but presumably one replaces the other going forward. The date of the letter is not shown but it provides a calculation of the account as at 31st December 1998 had that mortgage been changed to a capital repayment plan from 1995 so I think we can assume this letter was received in early 1999. The letter also states that there is an underpayment of £4,397 which it appears they are prepared to forgive. While focusing on the apology element of the letter he misses out the part on the second page which appears to give him a choice as to how he wants the mortgage to proceed and requests confirmation in an envelope provided.

Sorry I don't buy the idea that he was £4397 short and it is OK. That is 10% of what he borrowed! That is months of arrears but neither side has raised it? I think it is more likely that he received a letter saying that compared to a repayment mortgage he is £4397 behind where he should be with his repayments.

Of course without seeing the letter clearly I am just guessing but I think the £4397 would have been interest notionally underpaid because of the mix up. That would be a substantially smaller percentage of the total interest that B&B would collect besides the original capital sum. The main issue remains whether he paid the endowment premiums and to some extend whether he understood what B&B were saying to him in the letters. I think the answer to both is almost certainly "no".

[littleFred]

Video, 5m 49s: The offer letter, September 1988, mentions "A LIFE ASSURANCE POLICY on the lives of MR THOMAS CRAWFORD and MRS SUSAN ANN CRAWFORD with Royal Insurance Company Limited for £41800."

[Normal Wisdom]

Video, 5m 49s: The offer letter, September 1988, mentions "A LIFE ASSURANCE POLICY on the lives of MR THOMAS CRAWFORD and MRS SUSAN ANN CRAWFORD with Royal Insurance Company Limited for £41800."

Well spotted again! So the question now is whether he paid any of the premiums. It being termed a Life Assurance policy (which is what it effectively is) I wonder again whether he believed it was simply a "nice to have" and not essential to the mortgage.

[littleFred]

I'd like to see the entire "offer" document, but the situation seems clear.

The statements show his mortgage account with B&B was initially "Endowment -- Interest only". He was initially paying only interest to B&B. This is clear from his very first statement. If Tom had read it, he would have known from the start that he was paying B&B only the interest.

From the offer letter, the life assurance policy was with Royal Insurance Company Limited. (For anyone who doesn't know, an assurance policy pays out either on death, or at the end of the term if death hasn't occurred. It is different to an insurance policy which would pay out only on death.)

I don't know if Tom actually started this life assurance policy, or stopped paying after a while. From my own vague memory (I had a similar mortgage), assurance policies had very little cash-in value. Most of the value came at maturity. If it was cashed in half way into the term, it wouldn't pay out half of the assured sum but very much less, partly because that's how compound interest works.

The statements show some bounced payments. The Crawford finances were clearly tight. It seems likely (but I've seen no evidence) that Tom decided to stop paying the assurance policy, and took whatever small redemption value it had at that time.

Tom is pecking at the edges, and is blind to the real issue. From the start, he was paying B&B interest only. Perhaps B&B started expecting Tom to repay some capital and changed his mortgage to "part repayment" but didn't get Tom's permission for this, so the mortgage reverted to interest-only.

Tom didn't (and apparently still doesn't) understand that he was paying B&B only the interest on the loan. He wasn't paying off the capital. That was the function of the life assurance policy.

I don't know how much information B&B has about the life assurance policy. Did they know Tom had stopped paying it, and this was why they changed his mortgage to "part repayment"? Perhaps.

I hope the judgement will lay out a timeline of these events, so perhaps Tom (and his supporters) can finally understand what happened.

[vampireLOREN]

I'd like to see the entire "offer" document, but the situation seems clear.

The statements show his mortgage account with B&B was initially "Endowment -- Interest only". He was initially paying only interest to B&B. This is clear from his very first statement. If Tom had read it, he would have known from the start that he was paying B&B only the interest.

From the offer letter, the life assurance policy was with Royal Insurance Company Limited. (For anyone who doesn't know, an assurance policy pays out either on death, or at the end of the term if death hasn't occurred. It is different to an insurance policy which would pay out only on death.)

I don't know if Tom actually started this life assurance policy, or stopped paying after a while. From my own vague memory (I had a similar mortgage), assurance policies had very little cash-in value. Most of the value came at maturity. If it was cashed in half way into the term, it wouldn't pay out half of the assured sum but very much less, partly because that's how compound interest works.

The statements show some bounced payments. The Crawford finances were clearly tight. It seems likely (but I've seen no evidence) that Tom decided to stop paying the assurance policy, and took whatever small redemption value it had at that time.

Tom is pecking at the edges, and is blind to the real issue. From the start, he was paying B&B interest only. Perhaps B&B started expecting Tom to repay some capital and changed his mortgage to "part repayment" but didn't get Tom's permission for this, so the mortgage reverted to interest-only.

Tom didn't (and apparently still doesn't) understand that he was paying B&B only the interest on the loan. He wasn't paying off the capital. That was the function of the life assurance policy.

I don't know how much information B&B has about the life assurance policy. Did they know Tom had stopped paying it, and this was why they changed his mortgage to "part repayment"? Perhaps.

I hope the judgement will lay out a timeline of these events, so perhaps Tom (and his supporters) can finally understand what happened.

I think you are spot on Fred, but I doubt He and his followers will see it in its reality.
His best and I consider only hope would be a Whole of life Equity Release Mortgage which wuld secure his home for him and wifey......leaving only his heirs out of pocket.

[Normal Wisdom]

I'd like to see the entire "offer" document, but the situation seems clear .....

You've summed it up very well. Let's hope we get to see the blanks filled in before this is all over.

[littleFred]

Now that I've been thinking about how my own mortgage worked, I remember that the life assurance company sent me annual statements. These were, of course, quite separate from the Building Society mortgage statements. They showed (from memory) how much I had paid in to the policy, and what bonuses had been added, and how much it would pay out if I died. They may also have shown the current cash-in value.

They didn't project what the policy might be worth at the end of term, so I had a spreadsheet that showed, if bonuses continued at the current percentage rate, how much it would pay at the end. In other words, it answered my question: does it look as if this will pay off the mortgage?

[Hercule Parrot]

I hope the judgement will lay out a timeline of these events, so perhaps Tom (and his supporters) can finally understand what happened.

Hopefully it will be published on Bailli, so others can learn from it.

[Bones]

The offer confirms that it was an Endowment / Interest Only Mortgage





It looks like all of tom direct debits for the first few months were returned unpaid



Tom's own statements that he has now found show that the balance was not decreasing

[ArthurWankspittle]

I don't know how much information B&B has about the life assurance policy. Did they know Tom had stopped paying it, and this was why they changed his mortgage to "part repayment"? Perhaps.

I used the wrong wording earlier. The mortgage company's "interest" in the endowment is noted these days. This effectively means that if the insured stops paying the lender gets notified by the insurance company (same thing happens with Building Insurance). Whether this was in place for Tom's mortgage isn't certain.

[Bones]

Tom goes on to say that a warrant had not been issued

But



The documents he shows in the video show that Warrant of Possession was issued on 10 June 2014, it even shows the warrant number

[wanglepin]

Tom goes on to say that a warrant had not been issued
But The documents he shows in the video show that Warrant of Possession was issued on 10 June 2014, it even shows the warrant number

Indeed I believe I highlighted that on the Guy Taylor thread, where I showed Brian Gerrish and Guy Taylor to simply be trying to pull a fast one concerning Tom Crawford's eviction by scrolling down that sheet at speed
Corruption in our Courts - Guy Taylor 30-01-14
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6WkCBm ... 9428#t=409
using the pause button
from around the 19: onwards
24 September 2012 Suspended Mortgage Possession Order
And further down it can be read
10 June 2014 Warrant of Possession issued
Yet Brian Gerrish and Taylor state there "were no warrants issued"?

[NYGman]

I believe their position is that the Warrant were not sealed, stamped, signed in wet ink, lacked the Judge's foo, were not provided in full to review, and didn't meet the requirements for a Warrant, so no legal Warrant was ever issued. Of course, this is only their position, the Courts don't view it this way.

[vampireLOREN]

I hope the judgement will lay out a timeline of these events, so perhaps Tom (and his supporters) can finally understand what happened.

Hopefully it will be published on Bailli, so others can learn from it.

Old Tom reminds me of a Beatle song...."The Fool on the Hill"

[wanglepin]

Ceylon AKA mark haining AKA srilankerc, has posted this .threats to take the court under the rules of Magna Carta

Tom Crawford (and the Judge)

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... U3OMDTF98E

[longdog]

Bearded Loon...

The people in this courthouse have got a statutory obligation...

Perhaps they didn't consent

[littleFred]

John Hurst usually seems to understand something about legal processes, but he screwed up this one.

There is no judge. To continue, in my opinion, would be, an abuse of process. Common law procedure. It means the case should be set aside and Tom should get his costs.

But ... but ... but this hearing was for Tom's application for permission to appeal a possession order. B&B might want it set aside, but Tom wouldn't.

[Bones]

I like how they think if they say common law before something it makes it sound true.

£common law powers ? What common law powers do the gang of low i.q thugs have ?

[Bones]

It just gets better

"We are all peaceful but if the judge is not here in 'alf an hour, we are going to take the court under s.61 of the magna carta"

This is clause 61 of the magna carta
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/ma ... script.htm

"61. Inasmuch as, for the sake of God, and for the bettering of our realm, and for the more ready healing of the discord which has arisen between us and our barons, we have made all these aforesaid concessions, wishing them to enjoy for ever entire and firm stability, we make and grant to them the folIowing security: that the baron, namely, may elect at their pleaure twenty five barons from the realm, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain and cause to be observed, the peace and privileges which we have granted to them and confirmed by this our present charter. In such wise, namely, that if we, or our justice, or our bailiffs, or any one of our servants shall have transgressed against any one in any respect, or shall have broken one of the articles of peace or security, and our transgression shall have been shown to four barons of the aforesaid twenty five: those four barons shall come to us, or, if we are abroad, to our justice, showing to us our error; and they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay. And if we do not amend that error, or, we being abroad, if our justice do not amend it within a term of forty days from the time when it was shown to us or, we being abroad, to our justice: the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the remainder of the twenty five barons, and those twenty five barons, with the whole land in common, shall distrain and oppress us in every way in their power - namely, by taking our castles, lands and possessions, and in every other way that they can, until amends shall have been made according to their judnnent. Saving the persons of ourselves, our queen and our children. And when amends shall have been made they shall be in accord with us as they had been previously. And whoever of the land wishes to do so, shall swear that in carrying out all the aforesaid measures he will obey the mandates of the aforesaid twenty five barons, and that, with them, he will oppress us to the extent of his power. And, to any one who wishes to do so, we publicly and freely give permission to swear; and we will never prevent any one from swearing. Moreover, all those in the land who shall be unwilling, themselves and of their own accord, to swear to the twenty five barons as to distraining and oppressing us with them: such ones we shall make to wear by our mandate, as has been said. And if any one of the twenty five barons shall die, or leave the country, or in any other way be prevented from carrying out the aforesaid measures,--the remainder of the aforesaid twenty five barons shall choose another in his place, according to their judgment, who shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Moreover, in all things entrusted to those twenty five barons to be carried out, if those twenty five shall be present and chance to disagree among themselves with regard to some matter, or if some of them, having been summoned, shall be unwilling or unable to be present: that which the majority of those present shall decide or decree shall be considered binding and valid, just as if all the twenty five had consented to it. And the aforesaid twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the foregoing, and will caue them be observed to the extent of their power. And we shall obtain nothing from any one, either through ourselves or through another, by which any of those concessions and liberties may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been obtained, it shall be vain and invalid, and we shall never make use of it either through ourselves or through another. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta

The war was not going well for the loyalists, but Prince Louis and the rebel barons were also finding it difficult to make further progress.[66][67] John's death had defused some of the rebel concerns, and the royal castles were still holding out in the occupied parts of the country.[68][67] Henry's government encouraged the rebel barons to come back to his cause in exchange for the return of their lands, and reissued a version of the 1215 Charter, albeit having first removed some of the clauses, including those unfavourable to the Papacy and clause 61, which had set up the council of barons.[69][70] The move was not successful, and opposition to Henry's new government hardened.[71]