UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[fat frank]

am sure the arrears where never paid off from 2006, as he was told to just keep paying his normal monthly payment, as they added the arrears from 2006 and 2012 to get the £1800 figure, that's how I read it any way

edit, my mistake it says in 38 that the arrears where paid off, then in that case, there should be a possession order form 2012,

[wanglepin]

Just a quick question regarding possible enforcement of Tom's pending eviction, there's been a lot of chatter regarding it getting transfered up to the High Court. Is this a factual possibility? From what information I can see there's no writ available to remove him, a writ of possession is usually for trespassers.


Any thoughts on this?

why would they have to go to all the bother, Johnny? Tom won, it was a success!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Lord, some people do have short memories.

[fat frank]

read point 41, does that mean there was 9 months of arrears in 2006, before a big payment in the may

[JonnyL]

Just a quick question regarding possible enforcement of Tom's pending eviction, there's been a lot of chatter regarding it getting transfered up to the High Court. Is this a factual possibility? From what information I can see there's no writ available to remove him, a writ of possession is usually for trespassers.


Any thoughts on this?

why would they have to go to all the bother, Johnny? Tom won, it was a success!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Lord, some people do have short memories.

Haha!!! I do feel silly

[wserra]

And that is exactly why I believe he should be encouraged to join Quatloos and to discuss his beliefs with us.

[guilty]

read point 41, does that mean there was 9 months of arrears in 2006, before a big payment in the may

Yes, there was a substantial payment (not specified) which halted the 2006 possession.

It should also be noted that B&B, far from being 'fraudulent' have tried to assist Tom in every way. They allowed capitalisation of his arrears on the mortgage 6 times (!) and on the £5000 loan 3 times. B&B were also instrumental in persuading the Judge to allow an appeal out-of-time (2.5 years out-of-time!). They wrote or spoke to him on several occasions to to try and resolve his payment problems, but Tom refused.

[littleFred]

Yes, it seems he was 9 months in arrears before catching up in May 2006.

27. Sixthly, when Bradford & Bingley commenced possession proceedings in August 2012 the Crawfords were in arrears not having made any mortgage payment for some (at least three) months.

The £1,802.90 mentioned in para 91 "at the time of commencement of the possession proceedings" sounds like rather more than three months interest.

45. In September 2013 the Crawfords stopped making payments to Bradford & Bingley.

Perhaps arrears currently stand at 22 (or more) months' interest. I don't know how much the interest is. Say £200/month, then total current arrears for 22 months would be £4,400.

But doubtless an upcoming video will explain that there are no arrears because there never was a loan, nunkety-plunc.

[guilty]

Yes, it seems he was 9 months in arrears before catching up in May 2006

It doesn't indicate that Tom 'caught up' with his arrears - just that a substantial payment was made.

[guilty]

Perhaps arrears currently stand at 22 (or more) months' interest. I don't know how much the interest is. Say £200/month, then total current arrears for 22 months would be £4,400.
But doubtless an upcoming video will explain that there are no arrears because there never was a loan, nunkety-plunc.

It doesn't particularly matter what the arrears figure is. That's why Godsmark wasn't particularly concerned about the £1800 quoted, other than having a snarky pop at the lawyer. What matters is whether Tom was two months or more in arrears. That's what Godsmark confirmed in para 92.
The figure for arrears is just an indication of where Tom's payment should be up to. The arrears are already included in the capital amount owing (you don't double-count).

Edited to add: Tom can still dispute the figures of what he currently owes the bank, but as Godsmark says in para 93, that will be an accounting after the property is sold.

[littleFred]

It doesn't indicate that Tom 'caught up' with his arrears - just that a substantial payment was made.

But see:

38. [...] The 2006 possession proceedings were halted when the arrears were paid off.

Agreed, the current arrears, or the arrears at any particular time, are of no importance. He was at least two months overdue, and this triggered the repo hearing.

[rumpelstilzchen]

And that is exactly why I believe he should be encouraged to join Quatloos and to discuss his beliefs with us.

You are probably right. We can only live in hope.......
If Ceylon's beliefs really are correct it should be a very simple matter for him to come here and rebut our comments.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Has Tom at any point denied that he was in arrears?
I know he did not volunteer any information that suggested he was in arrears but that is not quite the same. Has he ever denied it? In any youtube video where he was being interviewed has the interviewer ever asked him "Did you stop paying your mortgage, Tom?" Perhaps they should have asked him that question. Same for Ebert and Taylor. No one ever asks them that on camera.

[wanglepin]

but as Godsmark says in para 93, that will be an accounting after the property is sold.

indeed which clearly states

93. That does not mean that Mr Crawford is not entitled to challenge the totality of the debt. He can still do so when an account is taken of how monies are to be paid following sale of the property.

And if that massive hint! didn't tell Tom Crawford that he had lost, then Godsmark`s closing point 104 was never going to penetrate his thick FKN skull, was it?

104. The Order that I make is that permission to appeal out of time is granted but permission to appeal is refused. The suspension of execution of the warrant for possession of 3 Fearn Close is lifted.
HHJ Godsmark QC

It must have been the hat.

[NYGman]

Has Tom at any point denied that he was in arrears?
I know he did not volunteer any information that suggested he was in arrears but that is not quite the same. Has he ever denied it? In any youtube video where he was being interviewed has the interviewer ever asked him "Did you stop paying your mortgage, Tom?" Perhaps they should have asked him that question. Same for Ebert and Taylor. No one ever asks them that on camera.

I think his position is that the 25yr term of the Mortgage is up, and he no longer needs to pay because the mortgage has ended. This would be true if he had switched to an interest and capital repayment option. The reason he believes it should now be paid in full, is because that is what they told him when he signed up for the interest only with endowment. I think he is claiming this policy was frauduently terminated, however it looks like they stoped paying for it, and it was cashed out at some point for £178 and applied to the mortgage. They would have to actually stop making payments that they were at onetime making. They did start of paying the endowment, what changed to make them stop? Could this be related to the non-payment of mortgage issues? If they did not stop making the endowment payments, where is that cash? I think they want us to believe B&B kept the policy alive, and have used it to cover the principal?

Something happened that resulted in endowment payments stopping, and never restarting, this is why he has to still pay the balance

[guilty]

And, again, (my bold):

94. It is not the totality of the debt which leads to the possession order. As set out above in paragraph 50, once there are two months arrears, Bradford & Bingley are entitled to possession. Once those two months arrears are proved the court must make a possession order. The total of the arrears is irrelevant to the making of that order.

[guilty]

Something happened that resulted in endowment payments stopping, and never restarting, this is why he has to still pay the balance

Para 97...However that came about, the Crawfords have known since at least 1999 that there was no means in place of repaying the original capital.

[letissier14]

Has Tom at any point denied that he was in arrears?
I know he did not volunteer any information that suggested he was in arrears but that is not quite the same. Has he ever denied it? In any youtube video where he was being interviewed has the interviewer ever asked him "Did you stop paying your mortgage, Tom?" Perhaps they should have asked him that question. Same for Ebert and Taylor. No one ever asks them that on camera.

In Tom's first ever video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WedSGlpSSO8 he states at approx 3.48 in on the video, that in 2013 District Judge Holt couldn't do anything to him because there were no arrears, the only thing there wasn't was an endowment, and that D/Judge Holt wasn't worried about that.

However if you look at the Judgment, under number (3) B&B started proceedings because Toms arrears had grown to £1802.90. Tom filed a defence (4) and under the section which asked if Tom agreed that there were arrears on the account, Tom ticked both the yes and no boxes. Tom then stated that he asked B&B to contact him as could afford to pay £30 per month in addition to the current monthly mortgage instalment. Tom then stated that B&B did not contact him.

Q. Why would you offer an extra £30 per month if you were not in arrears?

B&B then issued a witness statement dated 5th Sept 2012 (5) that the arrears had risen to £2104.45 and that the Crawford's had not paid anything since 27 February 2012.

There was a hearing on 19 September 2012 (6) to which D/Judge Murray-Smith did not enforce the order as long as Tom pays the current instalments under the mortgage and that the matter shall be listed for review in six months. Leave to appeal was refused

(8) The D/Judge found there were arrears which entitled B&B to possession, but made the generous offer of a suspended possession order as long as Tom made the current payments

On 15 April 2013 (10) Tom sought to appeal the order of 19 September 2012 on the grounds that the original claim form had not been sealed by the court and that there was no "wet signature" blah blah. The permission to appeal was refused.....

So it appears there were indeed arrears as, 1) Tom didn't contest any arrears in his appeal of 15 April 2013 and 2) Surely all Tom had to do was to provide copies of his bank account clearly showing all payments had been made to B&B if in fact the payments were made at all.

Going back to his initial video where Tom states "the only thing there wasn't was an endowment" - I just can't see how he can just dismiss this so easily as this is the one thing that could have paid his mortgage, but he talks about it like it is nothing and not important.

He is either very confused and didn't understand what an endowment mortgage is or he was talked into going down another route, which seems more probable.

What concerns me as well that (28) Tom made a complaint to the FOS in April 2013, saying that they had been paying into the endowment until 1999 and that until the endowment was found they should be treated as still making payments into the endowment. For obvious reasons this was rejected.

Now the judgment clearly states (30/31) that the endowment was surrendered in July 1992 and in fact no payment had been made on the policy since 25 June 1991 and the surrender payment of £178.75 was credited to his mortgage. Now why would Tom complain to the FOS that they had been making payments right up until 1999, when in fact the B&B had written to him in 1999 (25) informing that there would be no means for him to pay off his mortgage as the endowment policy had been surrendered since 1992?

Again all Tom had to do was provide bank records showing the payments into the policy right up to his claim that it was paid until 1999, and this would have stopped any argument to the fact!

It appears to me that because the policy was lost (in Toms opinion), Tom was clearly trying it on and saying "prove I didn't pay it" when in fact it would be in the best interest of Tom to prove he did pay!

The more I read about this, the more I feel people have been deceived and whether it be intentional or not, the fact remains, it really doesn't look good.

I hope Tom sees sense before it is too late and speaks to B&B, but I'm not so sure that will happen. I would hate to see him lose his house.

[guilty]

Has Tom at any point denied that he was in arrears?...
"Did you stop paying your mortgage, Tom?" Perhaps they should have asked him that question.

Para 99...There was no dispute that there were qualifying arrears.

[guilty]

It appears to me that because the policy was lost, Tom was clearly trying it on and saying "prove I didn't pay it" when in fact it would be in the best interest of Tom to prove he did pay!

The policy wasn't lost - it was cancelled and cashed in, with the proceeds going to the Crawfords.

[letissier14]

It appears to me that because the policy was lost, Tom was clearly trying it on and saying "prove I didn't pay it" when in fact it would be in the best interest of Tom to prove he did pay!

The policy wasn't lost - it was cancelled and cashed in, with the proceeds going to the Crawfords.

Sorry I meant to say that but was putting it from Tom's point of view and didn't make myself very clear!

Have edited it