Tom Crawford failed judgment 3/9/15 Part 1 & 2

[The Observer]

There could be another shoe to drop in this pathetic situation and that would be for the gurus to advise Crawford to target the new owners as "squatters" or illegal owners through harassment and "paper terrorism." They may convince Tom that this is now the way to get his house back and of course, for a "reasonable" fee provide him with all sorts of pseudolegal documents to file and lodge with the courts.

[Burnaby49]

142. Mr Crawford : Sorry, I forgot, you’ll have to excuse me, I’ve got short term memory
problems.

As I have been suggesting as a possibility. Problem is Tom, they seem worse than you think.

388. Mr Crawford : … £43,000, they sold the property for £55,000, they put no costs in after
the last hearing, they now are asking another £98,000 on top of that with no accounts once
again, they are acting as a fraudulent company.

Once again you prove that either you are thick or have memory issues. You have already been told numerous times that the B&B don't need to ask for costs as it is covered by the mortgage agreement. Reading that confirms to me that the shortfall is £98,000. Also, as I have said previously, I don't think B&B sent Tom a letter saying just "you owe us £98,000". I would expect that either further information was enclosed or is available on request.

Also, as I suspected and mentioned elsewhere, Tom will be paying for B&B's barrister and solicitor defending this crap.

The issue of costs to B&B are covered in the transcript;

339. Mr West : Now My Lord that then leads on the question of my application for a civil
restraint order.
340. Mr Justice Phillips : Well let’s deal first of all with the question of a consequential matter
as a result of that, my judgment. First of all the application is dismissed the claim is
dismissed. Are there any consequential applications in relation to that?
341. Mr West : I have no consequential applications in relation to costs the reason for that
being that the Bradley and Bingley will rely on its right to a contractual indemnity under the
mortgage conditions …
342. Mr Justice Phillips : So you have a balance on account don’t you?
343. Mr West : Yes. The reason for that being that the contractual indemnity is set out in the
mortgage conditions at pages 130 and 131 of the bundle and so in the … as is usual in
mortgage possession proceedings I make no application because I would simply add them
to the outstanding mortgage debt so I …

[AndyPandy]

£98k on top of the £55k they got for the sale, plus the costs of this debarcle.

Let's face it b&b have actually done him a favour getting a Civil Restraint Order, could you imagine what the costs would have reached if he hadn't been restricted

But then again if he's trying to bring a private conviction in the criminal courts costs are just going to keep on being loaded.

Scary stupidity

[PeanutGallery]

142. Mr Crawford : Sorry, I forgot, you’ll have to excuse me, I’ve got short term memory
problems.

As I have been suggesting as a possibility. Problem is Tom, they seem worse than you think.

I don't think Tom can play the dementia card, frankly I think he's very uneducated, very gullible, and possibly a little more forgetful than most, but I would put the cause down to generally being old rather than any form of illness. I do think he's trying to use the 'poor old man' angle which isn't going to work in court, because they don't care about that sort of stuff, what they care about is the facts of the case.

Now Tom's made another error, he can only go to the court of appeal to try and get the verdict overturned but he's already been denied that and is out of time. Fortunately B&B got a civil restraint order, which should at least help Tom by stopping him from running up additional costs each time B&B are forced to defend this. The main problem for Tom at the moment is he thinks Ebert was right when Ebert told Tom that he had won the Godsmark hearing.

38. Mr Justice Phillips : The point is that at the end of the day what happened was that he made an order in which he granted you permission to appeal, dismissed your appeal and lifted the suspension on enforcement, so that’s what the court has ordered. And you’re now trying to reargue that aren’t you?
39. Mr Crawford : No, no. The judgment was fine. It was excellent. But in fact the orderthat was passed down it didn’t reflect the actual judgment.
40. Mr Justice Phillips : Right.

and;

75. Mr Justice Phillips : So it looks as though you don’t agree with the judge’s decision.
76. Mr Crawford : We agree with it, to the extent that if he had passed down the order correctly, we should still be in our home.
77. Mr Justice Phillips : What I really don’t understand, Mr Crawford, is what you’re asking this court to do and at the moment the position is that the property has been repossessed, and it has been sold to a third party who now owns it and presumably are themselves in possession of it. That the order for possession now is … has been superseded by the …
78. Mr Crawford : There is no order for possession Sir.
79. Mr Justice Phillips : No the position, it has now been superseded by the fact that the property has been … the bank at the end of the day can sell the property. It doesn’t need an order for possession to sell the property. What it needs is an order for vacant possession, in order that it can sell with vacant possession. But the fact of the matter is that the bank has
now sold the property, as mortgagee.

Now Tom has not been helped here, because nobody has explained to him what the Judge actually did or informed him that Ebert was completely and utterly wrong. However this statement from Tom shows that he does know what happened.

160. Mr Crawford : So you put your finger directly on the problem, it’s a suspended order,
where is the order to lift that suspension? And the hearing to lift that suspension?
161. Mr Justice Phillips : Well that was done by His Honour Judge Godsmark, he lifted the suspension on the issue of a warrant.

In 39, Tom agreed that Godsmark gave an order to lift the suspension at a hearing and later he claims to have never had a hearing where the suspension was lifted. To my mind that points to someone who is completely out of his depth and who's advisers are giving him bad advice after bad advice. Tom is desperate and if he could afford them, would be clutching at straws.

[NG3]

But then again if he's trying to bring a private conviction in the criminal courts costs are just going to keep on being loaded.

It will never happen, the CPS are empowered to stop such prosecutions if they deem them vexatious, or malicious, and the previous failed cases, and restraining order will merit such actions.

[Hyrion]

he has lied, he clearly knew he was attempting to get away without paying what he'd agreed to (effectively a form of theft) even if at some point he began to believe the false justifications fed to him

his genuine surprise at a shortfall does indicate that none of his "supporters" explained the costs attached to his various actions

My memory could be wrong, but I vaguely recall a post by either one of the Crawford clan or one of the supporters saying something along the lines:

• If we can't have the house, we'll devalue it to the point no one wants it

If that recollection is correct - then he very well likely did understand what they were doing in relation to the potential costs.... at least as far as sending the value of the property south of the market.

As far as the additional costs that would be added to his bill: like most of his deliberate (my humble opinion) ignorance relating to his mortgage, I would not be surprised if this was another.

[PeanutGallery]

As far as the additional costs that would be added to his bill: like most of his deliberate (my humble opinion) ignorance relating to his mortgage, I would not be surprised if this was another.

At the moment I'm in two minds about the additional costs issue, on the one hand he's already going to be in the hole for more than I think he could pay, so what does it matter to him if they come after him for even more money. He still won't have it. To Tom there is likely no difference between owing £100,000 and £1,000,000. Both could bankrupt him and whatever amount he owes over his assets will not be recoverable.

So that right now I think their may well be no turning back for Tom, he's ruined anyway and no matter what he does he can't hope to recover from this. If Tom knows this it may well spur him on to fight more, just for the hell of it, just to be obnoxious to the banks and just to try and annoy them. He won't really achieve anything from that, except make himself feel important rather than impotent.

Of course this is why he's been made subject to a CRO, but I'd wager he's already considered or is considering making his next attempt to rehear this case in Sue's name. Eventually she'll get a CRO and that might stop him.

[Jeffrey]

I notice that they drag my wife into nearly every paragraph that they can in their skeleton argument and I can see the reason why because they want to make her also part of this restraining order which is once again malicious.

I get the sense that this here is Tom trying to somehow pre-empt any attempt at the bank getting their hands on Sue's mothers house.

[grixit]

I wonder if the new owner will go after Tom for "slander of title".

[SoLongCeylon]

But then again if he's trying to bring a private conviction in the criminal courts costs are just going to keep on being loaded.

It will never happen, the CPS are empowered to stop such prosecutions if they deem them vexatious, or malicious, and the previous failed cases, and restraining order will merit such actions.

When I was younger I worked for a very large recently privatised UK Utility Company and we often had nutters taking us to Court for supposed financial losses caused when the service failed. We usually snuffed these claims out quickly by asking the Judge to make the Applicant pay £5,000 - £10,000 into Court against our costs in the event the claim failed. Once the Judge ordered this, we rarely heard any more and six months later applied to the Court for the claim to be struck off. After this was done, we would cut of their telephone line as they often hadn't paid their bills for months. Suddenly the bill was paid. No one ever tried to pay with a WeRe cheque but this was 30 years ago and a time when Peter of England was still sane.


If TC ever did bring a private prosecution against the B&B, the Bailiffs, Notts Police, blah blah blah, the costs into Court card would be the first thing played.

[Normal Wisdom]

160. Mr Crawford : So you put your finger directly on the problem, it’s a suspended order,
where is the order to lift that suspension? And the hearing to lift that suspension?
161. Mr Justice Phillips : Well that was done by His Honour Judge Godsmark, he lifted the suspension on the issue of a warrant.

I think there is some confusion here.

The chronology is that in 2012, having missed three monthly interest payments, a suspended possession order was issued on the provisio that Tom maintain the monthly payment going forward etc. As we know, he did so up to the scheduled end of the mortgage agreement in 2013 and then he assumed that he could simply stop the interest payments. The official position is that he could not do this because the capital sum was still outstanding as the endowment policy had been surrendered more than 20 years previously. I don't really know what Tom is arguing about the endowment policy now but he felt he was entitled to stop paying interest.

In para 160 quoted above, I think Tom is arguing that there was not a hearing in 2013 at which the suspension of the 2012 possession order was lifted to allow the repossession of his house to begin. I don't doubt that it happened but if you look at our timeline it is not specifically mentioned:

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10691

The judge appears to assume that Tom is talking about the hearing earlier this year.

The thing I find frustrating about all these hearings is that they never go through the claims and actions in a structured way. Reading the transcript, I get the feeling that I know more about Tom's case history than the judge. The transcript is evidence of Tom and the judge talking over each other and sometimes clearly at cross purposes. There is little understanding let alone agreement on either side and Tom perhaps understandably feels that his arguments (however ridiculous they are) are not being heard. The effect is that old questions are not fully resolved and new ones are raised which merely adds to the catalogue of issues that Tom feels he can use to challenge the possession of his house.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I get the sense that this here is Tom trying to somehow pre-empt any attempt at the bank getting their hands on Sue's mothers house.

Which will work about as well as his criminal prosecutions. Sue was on the mortgage and is almost certainly "jointly and severally liable". That, if you are not aware of the full details of English law means that either or both of the parties may be chased for all the costs. In this case, that is SMH.
The CPS, if Tom were to bring a prosecution, would simply take it over and discontinue it.
And one thing I am not fully up to date with, I suspect B&B barrister just cost Tom >£500/hr and their solicitor is likely to cost >£200/hr. Bringing that case just added £x,000 onto the £98,000 already owed. Tom and Sue are in the hole for 6 figures. Victory!

[fat frank]

£98k on top of the £55k they got for the sale, plus the costs of this debarcle.

Let's face it b&b have actually done him a favour getting a Civil Restraint Order, could you imagine what the costs would have reached if he hadn't been restricted

But then again if he's trying to bring a private conviction in the criminal courts costs are just going to keep on being loaded.

Scary stupidity

CPS wont allow it, the CPS can take over any case and throw it out, when this happens, Tom will claim TPTB are stopping him as he is exposing the fraud

[PeanutGallery]

Reading the transcript, I get the feeling that I know more about Tom's case history than the judge.

I would assume we do, Judges don't have the time to independently research the cases put before them, they have to rely on the arguments and documents submitted to the court. We've had the luxury of looking at this for a long time and getting ourselves very acquainted with it, we likely know points that were not raised in court, or held within the various bundles submitted for trial.

Who's fault is that? It's going to be Tom's (and his legal advisers), if the Judge doesn't have the history right then it's your fault for not setting the facts out straight for him. I'd also say that from my reading the Judge seemed confused about what Tom wanted the court to do. This in part stemmed from Tom having the sincere, although misguided, belief that he won in the recent Godsmark hearing.

[longdog]

The thing I find frustrating about all these hearings is that they never go through the claims and actions in a structured way. Reading the transcript, I get the feeling that I know more about Tom's case history than the judge. The transcript is evidence of Tom and the judge talking over each other and sometimes clearly at cross purposes. There is little understanding let alone agreement on either side and Tom perhaps understandably feels that his arguments (however ridiculous they are) are not being heard. The effect is that old questions are not fully resolved and new ones are raised which merely adds to the catalogue of issues that Tom feels he can use to challenge the possession of his house.

I think you would find the transcript would make more sense if we had the 'bundles' of documents relating to the case which the B&B lawyer, the judge and, presumably Tom have copies of and have read even if in Tom's case understanding of the contents is debatable. We, as mere nosey bastards, do not have that luxury.

[guilty]

The transcript is evidence of Tom and the judge talking over each other and sometimes clearly at cross purposes. There is little understanding let alone agreement on either side and Tom perhaps understandably feels that his arguments (however ridiculous they are) are not being heard. The effect is that old questions are not fully resolved and new ones are raised which merely adds to the catalogue of issues that Tom feels he can use to challenge the possession of his house.

Whose fault is that?
If you look at the transcript where the lawyer is stepping through the history and referencing page numbers and document numbers, the judge merely confirms 'yes' on several occasions.
Tom provides a garbled monologue, 'assisted' by others, without any references or supporting documents - so it is unsurprising that the judge has no clue what he is talking about.

[Skeleton]

253. Mr Crawford : Yes. Once again, Bradford & Bingley’s solicitors waffle on about certain
things and ignore the facts. The facts are that if you go to the document I passed up to you,
page 12, for instance, a request to reissue the warrant that they all acted on and stole my
property, if you look at the box, where it’s got an X next to it, and they signed it. And the
amount and the balance due is shown. Obviously, I don’t owe anything to have this request
for a warrant. Where was the warrant, why wasn’t it issued to me in good time? I’ve
written to the court many times, so I could take legal advice on it, in good time. This was
not done. And then at number 30:
“Your request for a warrant for possession of land has been referred to District Judge Lloyd
Jones, who has made the following comments. Unless interest payments due under the
mortgage, the order is to be paid on the 19th.”

I know the man is possesed with Warrants but can anyone decipher what he is saying here? It beats me, he can't seriously be asking where the warrant was surely?

[Normal Wisdom]

Reading the transcript, I get the feeling that I know more about Tom's case history than the judge.

I would assume we do, Judges don't have the time to independently research the cases put before them, they have to rely on the arguments and documents submitted to the court. We've had the luxury of looking at this for a long time and getting ourselves very acquainted with it, we likely know points that were not raised in court, or held within the various bundles submitted for trial.

Who's fault is that? It's going to be Tom's (and his legal advisers), if the Judge doesn't have the history right then it's your fault for not setting the facts out straight for him. I'd also say that from my reading the Judge seemed confused about what Tom wanted the court to do. This in part stemmed from Tom having the sincere, although misguided, belief that he won in the recent Godsmark hearing.

I know you're right but it just frustrates me that there is nobody who can sit Tom down and take his "case" apart piece by piece and put an end to all this nonsense once and for all. Even then I guess it may not stop Tom and his supporters but at the moment it just seems to be "one step forward, two steps back" with the overall case getting more not less complex. I suppose the CPO is effectively the way to stop further debate of an argument that has constantly been judged as without merit.

[AndyPandy]

Some of it is becoming clearer, Ebert / Taylor / Haining et al said 'you've won' but to cover up the fact they got it so dramatically wrong, those bastards have told Tom 'the wrong order got handed down'. It's as though they've told him there's been some sort of Administrative cock up and possession was never granted to b&b and they've subsequently 'stolen' his home.

It looks like he still thinks the Judgment of DJ Godsmark actually went in his favour when clearly it NEVER did, those clowns have cost him BIG time !

[PeanutGallery]

And that is going to be the problem, Tom is going to be confusingly asking for the decision made by Godsmark to be followed correctly and when the Judges will tell him that it was, he won't believe them because his ears been filled up with the poison dripped in it by Ebert and Ceylon.

So he's going to find himself trapped in a frustrating loop, which will only be broken should someone - who he believes - tell him that Ebert and Ceylon couldn't have gotten basic facts more wrong. However the chances of this happening are nil, anyone who does is called a troll or a shill, when the truth is all we have been trying to do is to stop Tom from wasting money on stupid applications and focus on having some form of stability for the rest of his life.