UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[PeanutGallery]

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?

It is possible that Sue may have cashed in the endowment not knowing what it was, credited it to the mortgage and just not told Tom about this. Or they may have simply forgotten that they cashed in what was the endowment policy 23 years ago. It seems to have been a relatively minor financial transaction and they may not have properly appreciated the repercussions of cancelling it and what affect this would have in what was then the distant future.

I agree that it would be a shame for Tom to lose his house over this, but sadly I don't see any way for him to get out of this situation, which ultimately is of his own making. We don't know the scale of the legal fees that will be added to the mortgage arrears, although we can assume that they will be significant.

What also bothers me about this is that their are certainly people more deserving of support and help who find themselves facing problems as devastating as Tom's (if not more) through no fault of their own.

[vampireLOREN]

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?

It is possible that Sue may have cashed in the endowment not knowing what it was, credited it to the mortgage and just not told Tom about this. Or they may have simply forgotten that they cashed in what was the endowment policy 23 years ago. It seems to have been a relatively minor financial transaction and they may not have properly appreciated the repercussions of cancelling it and what affect this would have in what was then the distant future.

I agree that it would be a shame for Tom to lose his house over this, but sadly I don't see any way for him to get out of this situation, which ultimately is of his own making. We don't know the scale of the legal fees that will be added to the mortgage arrears, although we can assume that they will be significant.

What also bothers me about this is that their are certainly people more deserving of support and help who find themselves facing problems as devastating as Tom's (if not more) through no fault of their own.

I would think based on the fact that the insurance co paid the remaining funds directly into the Mortgage account at B&B, what sadly appears to their financial history they fell behind. Once it had depleted to the sum of £170+ it was basically useless, and was B&B's money anyway.

[letissier14]

It is possible that Sue may have cashed in the endowment not knowing what it was, credited it to the mortgage and just not told Tom about this. Or they may have simply forgotten that they cashed in what was the endowment policy 23 years ago. It seems to have been a relatively minor financial transaction and they may not have properly appreciated the repercussions of cancelling it and what affect this would have in what was then the distant future.

I agree that it would be a shame for Tom to lose his house over this, but sadly I don't see any way for him to get out of this situation, which ultimately is of his own making. We don't know the scale of the legal fees that will be added to the mortgage arrears, although we can assume that they will be significant.

What also bothers me about this is that their are certainly people more deserving of support and help who find themselves facing problems as devastating as Tom's (if not more) through no fault of their own.

I think it is unlikely she cashed it in as the money that was returned was credited direct to the mortgage, so it was more likely that having stopped paying towards the policy. the policy was closed any money due to be returned was paid directly to the mortgage account.

Having said that, Sue may have genuinely not realised that the money was not going out of her account and the policy wasn't be paid. However, I'm pretty sure the insurance company would have written to Sue (and the mortgage lender) as soon as there were any missed payments, plus if payment had failed because she didn't have enough funds in her bank account the bank would have written to her informing her of such.

Whatever the reason though, they should have been checking each month to make sure both the endowment and mortgage were paid, as I know when I had my first mortgage in 1989 I was told countless times how important it was for me to make sure the endowment was paid.

There has obviously been some mistakes made by the bank without question and I am quite surprised they waited until 1999 to tell Tom about the endowment policy being lapsed, but at the end of the day, you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

[guilty]

I'm pretty sure the insurance company would have written to Sue (and the mortgage lender) as soon as there were any missed payments.

I'm not so sure they would have contacted the lender. It used to be that endowment policies were assigned to the bank lender. But that rarely happens now.
The mortgage and the endowment, one with B&B and the other with Royal Life(Phoenix), were entirely separate and distinct financial transactions. The holder (the borrower) can change either one of them, or both, without reference to the other party.
How and when did B&B become aware that the endowment had ceased? I don't know.

[JonnyL]

I think the reason they stopped paying the endowment policy was due to the fact it was only worth £178 after 3 years of payments, I think they panicked thinking they were losing money on it and probably thought they'd sort something else out over the coming years, unfortunately, as stated earlier there has been a history of arrears and re-capitalisation and they've simply sank deeper into the doo doo. Neither Tom or his demented followers comprehend the terms of the contract and the executed deed, they assume because he initially borrowed £42k and he's paid back around £120k then the debt should be null and void. Life isn't that simple I'm afraid. My sympathy has since scattered down the drain.

[daltontrumbno]

With endowment policies the first few years are swallowed up by fees so like others have said when they saw the valuation after three years was next to nothing instead of seing an advisor and admitting that they were confused and asking to know what was going on they simply stopped paying and buried their heads in the sand and hoped the problem would go away. Like other theories this is all just speculation as the only people who know the truth Tom and Sue are keeping quite on the matter.

[Silly Ebert]

fat frank wrote:

JonnyL wrote: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?

yes, there is a possession order in force from 2006, as he never cleared the arrears, so the order still stands, the warrant of eviction ran out, but the possession order is still live, they can apply and get it moved up, saying the crown trouble, so need a surprise visit


Sorry guys new to this forum.
The warrant from Jan 2015 is still live it was only suspended , that has now been lifted there is no need for Walker Morris to re apply for a warrant.

[wanglepin]

What also bothers me about this is that their are certainly people more deserving of support and help who find themselves facing problems as devastating as Tom's (if not more) through no fault of their own.

There are indeed more needy and deserving than this fake 'poor old man'.
Tom Crawford started to appear on various forums particularly getoutofdebtfree pleading for help and support claiming he had been conned by B&B. He has stated many times since and so has Guy Taylor acting brief for the Crawford’s stated the same- that he (Tom Crawford) had had his mortgage changed without his knowledge or consent. It was this lie and this lie alone that garnered all the support Tom Crawford has been receiving.
This claim now has turned out to be a total crock of shite. He has, knowingly, with intent, continually lied to those supporters and the rest of the UK since the day first he shouted "fraud".
Tom Crawford will still plead himself innocent of any wrongdoing as regards the (his lies) false statements he has continuously been putting out to the general public and his faithful supporters. Will they got fooled again? is the question.

[vampireLOREN]

I think the reason they stopped paying the endowment policy was due to the fact it was only worth £178 after 3 years of payments, I think they panicked thinking they were losing money on it and probably thought they'd sort something else out over the coming years, unfortunately, as stated earlier there has been a history of arrears and re-capitalisation and they've simply sank deeper into the doo doo. Neither Tom or his demented followers comprehend the terms of the contract and the executed deed, they assume because he initially borrowed £42k and he's paid back around £120k then the debt should be null and void. Life isn't that simple I'm afraid. My sympathy has since scattered down the drain.

The £178 is the amount the joint policy had earned at the point it finally was closed.
In three years of paying and remember it is also Life Cover, it was worth more but they must have missed payments for some months. When it reached so low a figure it was obvious to the Insurance co That their policy was effectively over They forwarded the balance to Mr B & Mr B (remember them?) . Also remember that Mrs C made attempts to purchase life cover in 1999, we do not know how she got on but I would hazard a guess it was beyond them.
Sympathy? not for these people.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Sympathy? not for these people.

Agreed. When you delve deeper into the circumstances of the people who claim they are having their houses "stolen" from beneath them you always find there is the small matter of them failing to maintain their mortgage repayments rearing its ugly head. But they never tell you that. They twist the story in order to make it appear that the bank is at fault.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Meanwhile back at the ranch it is "clutching at straws time" for SalliNae. He/she is attempting to build a case around the judge's attire:

http://www.getoutofdebtfree.org/forum/v ... 35#p387135

SalliNae never fails to amuse. She provides us with the beautiful one-liner:

Thankfully, we have eloquent critically thinking people such as Liz Watson providing their own reports, or we would never have known about what truly happened on the day.

"Critically thinking"?

Salli...Salli...Salli....listen up. Tom won didn't he? Why are you going over this if you believe he won?

[Normal Wisdom]

I think the reason they stopped paying the endowment policy was due to the fact it was only worth £178 after 3 years of payments, I think they panicked thinking they were losing money on it and probably thought they'd sort something else out over the coming years, unfortunately, as stated earlier there has been a history of arrears and re-capitalisation and they've simply sank deeper into the doo doo. Neither Tom or his demented followers comprehend the terms of the contract and the executed deed, they assume because he initially borrowed £42k and he's paid back around £120k then the debt should be null and void. Life isn't that simple I'm afraid. My sympathy has since scattered down the drain.

Even without the crisis in returns, endowment policies were not worth anything in the first few years. The value grows exponentially over the term. Personally I think they didn't understand what it was and saw it as a way of saving a few quid when things were tight. Tom says that they believe that B&B were paying the endowment from the money that the Crawford's paid them every month and I can believe that. I think they always believed that the money they paid to B&B was all that was necessary and the "life assurance" with Royal London was an added extra which they could do without. Of course we shall never know for sure because they don't even admit to cashing it in.

However, I believe that Ms Crawford has had a far greater involvement in this situation than Tom has admitted or perhaps fully understands. This is supported by another point which hasn't gathered much attention but which has transformed my perception of how this situation occurred. You may have all realised this already so I apologise if I have been slow on the uptake and am actually last to the party.

Paragraph 33 of the judgement states: 33.Bradford & Bingley have also produced a document entitled a Customer Needs Analysis. It is apparently signed by Mrs Crawford on 29th January 1999. The document contains reference to the lack of arrangements to pay off the mortgage and that the mortgage is to be re-arranged onto a repayment basis to make sure the debt is gradually repaid

Tom has made much of the "flowers and champagne" apology from B&B and we were encouraged to believe that this was made because B&B had unilaterally changed the mortgage to a Repayment type without the Crawford's agreement. It is apparent from the judgement that this didn't happen so why the gift?

I believe that someone (probably Mrs Crawford) had spoken to B&B at some point before 1999 (possibly 1995) about converting the Endowment mortgage to a Repayment type but that this change had not been completed. In January 1999 she discovered this was the case and challenged B&B about it. This led to the "Customer Needs Analysis" described in para. 33 of the judgement as above. It also led to B&B writing to the Crawford's to apologise that the requested change had not been made. The letter from B&B dated 29th January 1999 (the same date as the Customer Needs Analysis signed by Mrs Crawford) says:

“I cannot apologise enough that your account is currently on a Part Endowment, Part Capital and Repayment basis. I have checked through my records but I am unable to find any instructions from you to change your account onto a Capital and Repayment basis.”

We have to remember that there were two loans; one (for the main sum of £41,800) was an endowment mortgage and the other (for £5,000) was a repayment mortgage. Thus the description in the letter from B&B of the account being on a "Part Endowment, Part Capital and Repayment basis" reflects the situation that the Crawford's entered into at the beginning of their two loans in 1988.

The letter from B&B can thus be read that they were apologising because they had not changed the Crawford's endowment mortgage to a repayment type when originally requested (and not as Tom alleges, because they had). The letter offers Tom the opportunity to make this change and have it backdated to 1995. As we know Tom did not take up this offer either in 1999 or when it was subsequently made again in 2006.

I think we are left with the strong possibility that this problem was created not just by Tom's ignorance of the mortgage situation and pig headed refusal to take advice (until it was too late and then from the wrong people) but also by a chronic disconnect between Tom and his wife.

[Normal Wisdom]

.... 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.

Don't forget that in one of his earlier videos Tom says that his complaint to the FOS was rejected because it was "out of time". This is another lie because as we now know from paragraph 28 of the judgement "The Ombudsman rejected the complaint on 18th July 2013 finding that Bradford & Bingley were not responsible for paying the policy target f £41,800 (or a separate lump sum of £11,000 which appears to relate to a Mortgage Indemnity Guarantee)"

[Silly Ebert]

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?

This will be up to the county court if they think it will cause them to much grief they can get it transferred up to the high court. A writ can be issued on the basis they have a valid warrant.
I don't think the county court will do this as I believe when they "rudely woke" TC up at 5:00 on that Jan morning they gave him an N54A which stated they can come back anytime 7 days "after" the eviction date which was 23rd.
My guess is this will be soon

[guilty]

Neither Tom or his demented followers comprehend the terms of the contract and the executed deed, they assume because he initially borrowed £42k and he's paid back around £120k then the debt should be null and void. Life isn't that simple I'm afraid. My sympathy has since scattered down the drain.

I've just been doing some rough-and-ready calculations on the mortgage loan.
Tom originally agreed to pay £278.70 over 300 months on an interest only loan of £41,000.
The Bank of England rate in May 1988 was 7.3% and in June 1988 was 8.37%.
Tom's payment is set (from my calculations) at about 7.12% - so that seems to be perfectly OK. In fact he got a good deal at the time.

Over the whole period he would have paid about £84,000. If he's paid £120,000 then I guess there are additional payments for the £5000 loan, plus all the 9 (!) capitalisations where the bank may have had to adjust his interest payments.

The fact that he thinks this has paid for his house is plainly ridiculous.

It was about November 1992 before the bank rate started to drop below 7.1%%. Tom could have remortgaged in, say, 1999 when the rate dropped to 5%. B&B were trying to advise him of this at that time. That would have saved him some money each month, provided he maintained his endowment policy with Royal Life.

[JonnyL]

What makes me think they bailed due to the low amount of the endowment was because they ceased paying it exactly 3 years after the mortgage was took out. At some point near to that time they would have received an annual statement showing the endowment was effectively worth less than they were paying in, or so it probably seemed to them at the time. The mortgage offer of advance is dated 23rd June 1988, last payment on endowment 25th June 1991 and the policy was surrendered 1 year later. The dates are too close for me to think it's anything other than their own doing regarding the endowment. And I agree with other statements on here who suggest it also helped with their immediate cash flow at the time.

[noblepa]

Meanwhile, ... Elvis Presley is still dead.

No, he's not. He just went home.

Agent K

[JonnyL]

Neither Tom or his demented followers comprehend the terms of the contract and the executed deed, they assume because he initially borrowed £42k and he's paid back around £120k then the debt should be null and void. Life isn't that simple I'm afraid. My sympathy has since scattered down the drain.

I've just been doing some rough-and-ready calculations on the mortgage loan.
Tom originally agreed to pay £278.70 over 300 months on an interest only loan of £41,000.
The Bank of England rate in May 1988 was 7.3% and in June 1988 was 8.37%.
Tom's payment is set (from my calculations) at about 7.12% - so that seems to be perfectly OK. In fact he got a good deal at the time.

Over the whole period he would have paid about £84,000. If he's paid £120,000 then I guess there are additional payments for the £5000 loan, plus all the 9 (!) capitalisations where the bank may have had to adjust his interest payments.

The fact that he thinks this has paid for his house is plainly ridiculous.

It was about November 1992 before the bank rate started to drop below 7.1%%. Tom could have remortgaged in, say, 1999 when the rate dropped to 5%. B&B were trying to advise him of this at that time. That would have saved him some money each month, provided he maintained his endowment policy with Royal Life.

TBH the £120k is just something I've seen banded around online, probably twisted to startle people back into feeling sorry for the old chap.

[vampireLOREN]

Thankfully, we have eloquent critically thinking people such as Liz Watson providing their own reports, or we would never have known about what truly happened on the day.

"
And Thankfully we have You Sal...whoever you are.
You bring much mirth into my life, without you the
world would be poorer.
If anyone takes you at your word....well more fool them.
Those that find solid truth and wisdom in your opinions
are lost souls and you their shepherd, poor misguided
idiots that they are.

[PeanutGallery]

The basic maths shows that if Tom made EVERY payment of £278.70 per month for the 25 years of the mortgage this would amount to £83,610. It is disputed that Tom made every payment, however it is possible that he paid around £80,000 to the bank to cover the interest on the loan.

In order to reach a figure of £120,000 Tom would either have had to be paying £400.00 per month or for his mortgage to have lasted for approximately 35 and a half years. We know Tom wasn't paying £400 per month and we also know it's not been 35 and a half years since he took the mortgage out.

I can see the logic that Tom and his supporters are using, in his mind he has paid back roughly double the amount he initially borrowed and thinks this should be enough profit for the bank. Unfortunately for him it isn't and it also wasn't what he agreed to do when he took out the mortgage in the first place.