Tom Crawford is on the roof of Fearn Close !!!

[#six]

Actually I have some sympathy with the Jacksons. It would appear that Pirtek have a habit of closing down franchises along with claims for cash at the end of the term. Coincidence - who knows. However that sympathy ends when they start on all the batshit crazy Sovcit rubbish. I think they would have been better off if they had paid the alleged debt and then found others allegedly screwed by Pirtek to launch a case against them for any losses.

That being said, I cannot know if Pirtek are dodgy or not - but one must assume not according to their court wins. If not, then the Jacksons should just pay up and shut up.

[Bones]

Just watched the Jackson eviction video's that have been posted...

A link would have been nice ...

Sorry I use the FB app on my phonr and I don't know how to post links from the app.

There has been a series of video's uploaded on the EFOTB group FB page.

[wanglepin]

A link would have been nice ...

[/quote]
Bailiffs & Police at the Jacksons I believe.
https://www.facebook.com/edstar14/video ... 072789833/

he just threatened me, arrest him.

Police man:No I won't

https://www.facebook.com/edstar14/posts ... 9691020289
More on bailiffs at jacksons.

Sue Crawford:Where's the warrant?

https://www.facebook.com/edstar14/posts ... 9644339122

[Normal Wisdom]

Just watched the Jackson eviction video's that have been posted...

A link would have been nice ...

Sorry I use the FB app on my phonr and I don't know how to post links from the app.

There has been a series of video's uploaded on the EFOTB group FB page.

No worries Bones. I found them on YouTube and an extra one from Mrs Jackson which follows all the usual baloney; no warrant, no fees etc etc.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJfgYR ... BJUwm5yolQ

[Skeleton]

Whatever else Tom cant be blamed for this one, the Jacksons were well up the SovCit path and living in la la land long before he appeared on the scene to "assist.'

[SoLongCeylon]

Do you think Mrs Jackson could be Sue's sister? I think their voices sound similar ( she certainly spouts the same nonsense as the Crawfords ) and in the photo Sue seems to be very close to Mr and Mrs J. Poor old Tom is somewhat on the side ( if he was ever there at all )

It seems the eviction happened a few months ago and they have recently re taken possession of the house.

I can't think why it would be just Tom and Sue getting in on the act - although you can hear Ebert cherping away on the phone in one clip and Mrs J asks for " Guy's number " ( currently Cell 3 East Wing HMP Swansea )

[Interobang]

I'm betting he wandered into the nick as arranged, was interviewed and then bailed.

I don't think so. Tom and his "supporters" would have been shouting this from the rooftops (no pun intended... maybe not) as a Complete VICTORY and an utter rout of the police and the CPS. Not to mention a complete vindication of his notion that the house is still his.

After all, if the police did not charge him, there obviously is no crime. If there is no crime, it must mean that he was not trespassing. If he was not trespassing, that can only mean that the house is his. QED.

Agreed, should he not have been charged, they would have made sure everyone knew about it by now.

!?

[littleFred]

I'm surprised by Tom's silence on what the police have said or done. Tom thought he was in a win-win situation:

-- If they charge him, then he goes to court and persuades them that he owns the house.

-- If they don't charge him, it's because they know he owns the house.

It is possible that someone has sat down with him and explained in words he can understand that he doesn't own 3 Fearn Close and that his actions are harming himself.

[FatGambit]

Actually I have some sympathy with the Jacksons. It would appear that Pirtek have a habit of closing down franchises along with claims for cash at the end of the term. Coincidence - who knows. However that sympathy ends when they start on all the batshit crazy Sovcit rubbish. I think they would have been better off if they had paid the alleged debt and then found others allegedly screwed by Pirtek to launch a case against them for any losses.

That being said, I cannot know if Pirtek are dodgy or not - but one must assume not according to their court wins. If not, then the Jacksons should just pay up and shut up.

BBC London just run this case as their headline news, there was no batshit fmotl crazy stuff mentioned, just sensible arguments, so I wonder whether they were being prompted at that point to spout the fmotl stuff as a desperate last stand.

Hopefully the Jacksons will accept the help they are being offered by the SBCB (Serious Banking Complaints Bureau) rather than Ebert and co, they interviewed a guy, named John Goddard who said they were aware of at least 14 other Pirtek franchise holders who'd had the same done to them (never heard of this guy or the company, can only assume they are nothing to do with Ebert).

Pirtek said they had only ever terminated two franchise holders in 25 year for inter-selling, ,so someone is telling porkies.

Local MP has reported the matter to the Police, so perhaps the collective membership here might like to give the Jackson's some wiggle room instead of condemning them outright for what might have been a desperate last ditch attempt to stop themselves loosing everything, and like 99% of the public, having no idea how the legal system works.

I've certainly never heard anything good about Pirtek's business practices and was warned off buying one of their franchises years ago as they are well known within the industry for their sharp practice.

[exiledscouser]

FG

I agree that there may be a back story here, for all I know Pirtek are a bunch of mercenary bastards who are all too quick to litigate.

But involving and relying on poison from Messrs Ebert, Crawfraud and Haining will dilute and perhaps completely derail any legitimate argument the Jacksons may have.

Desperate people will resort to desperate measures, it's true which is why charlatans like this unholy trio of self-appointed serial failure merchants will always find a niche through which to promote both themselves and their ideals. If it fails (as it usually does) then it's the fault of TPTB and no fault of their own whatsoever, not withstanding the misery and wreckage they leave in their wake. No, it's on to the next unfortunate.

If the Jacksons are now seeking advice elsewhere from competent counsel then hopefully, win or lose they will have explored every legitimate avenue available to them. This though, the Tom & Sue shouty show all uploaded onto a public forum (I've watched the videos) demeans them and will ultimately defeat any hope they might have of salvaging something. For their sake I do hope they take them down.

For me I can't take pleasure in seeing someone lose their home, Tom particularly, but those who espouse, adopt or actively promote nonsense fmotl remedies are demonstrating just how dangerous they are to themselves and more particularly to others, as the outcome in the Jackson case won't ever impact directly upon the advice-givers.

As I understand the Jackson' position their home is worth £600k and is owned outright, that is, there is no mortgage. The debt is said to be i.r.o. £46k. To get to the stage where the property is 'repossessed' and them kicked out, I suppose a charging order was obtained and then enforcement of it sought which would force the sale of the property. I'm also thinking that this was probably the final chapter in what will have been a long history of the claimant's solicitors seeking less drastic ways of enforcing the debt.

I do sincerely hope that the Jacksons can sort this out without putting at risk far more through reliance on fuckwits as this will just relentlessly eat into the huge chunk of equity they still have in the property.

As for Pirtek, there are a few complaints about them but they seem balanced by positive reviews;

This one from the US

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complain ... 36095.html

Here's a summary of a court case from the UK which ended in Pirtek's favour, in fact a case that is often quoted in restrictive covenants for activities post the franchise holding, the neutral citation reference is [2010] EWHC 1641 (Ch) if anyone wants to look it up although I've just noticed that Hercule Parrot has already cited this case here viewtopic.php?f=52&t=11057&start=300

https://www.slaughterandmay.com/media/1 ... y_2010.pdf

One man's experience of Pirtek in the UK which is fairly up beat;

http://www.startinbusiness.co.uk/franchise_example.htm

If the Jacksons continue to free-fall down the Goodf rabbit hole though I'm afraid that sympathy (and salvation) will be in short supply.

[Hercule Parrot]

As I understand the Jackson' position their home is worth £600k and is owned outright, that is, there is no mortgage. The debt is said to be i.r.o. £46k. To get to the stage where the property is 'repossessed' and them kicked out, I suppose a charging order was obtained and then enforcement of it sought which would force the sale of the property. I'm also thinking that this was probably the final chapter in what will have been a long history of the claimant's solicitors seeking less drastic ways of enforcing the debt.

This is the key point. Based on what I've read, Pirtek's claim doesn't seem unjust. Jackson's company were caught trading outside the franchise arrangement, and making dishonest profit by this cheating. The franchise contract includes a penalty for that (remember this isn't a consumer contract, it's B2B). The court found Jackson's company liable, and as a guarantor he was therefore on the hook for that. So I think the presumption has to be that the £46k debt is legitimate.

Jackson could have easily paid the £46k. Even if he's light on cash, a 5 bed detached in Hitchen is worth serious money (more than £600k, I suspect). He could have taken a mortgage or traded down now that the kids have grown up. But he didn't do that. Instead he put his head firmly up his own arse and maintained a belligerent stream of FMOTL nonsense. He tried to hide assets in his wife's name, he lied and evaded and blustered. He actively resisted all attempts to resolve this by other means, and eventually forced a position where the creditors must take his home or get nothing at all.

It's sad, but Jackson has squarely brought this upon himself. He could have paid the £46k and then litigated to recover it. He could have spent a happy retirement in his big house, writing to MP's about what a bunch of rotters Pirtek are. He could have employed a real lawyer to bring a real appeal in a real court. But his ego wouldn't allow it - he would rather lose everything than obey (or appeal) a court order. And now he has achieved what he wanted.

[FatGambit]

I agree completely about seeking help from the terrible trio, you'll get no argument from me on that front lol and I've no doubt there's as many if not more happy franchise holders than disgruntled.

There was something said on the news article about the accounts software and it's subsequent information being as good as gibberish, they claim this comment was made by a Judge or chartered accountants but I can't remember the exact terms they used, I'm sure the program is on the iPlayer for anybody interested, it's the BBC London news at 6.30pm.

Not saying they didn't sell rival products, but this wouldn't be the first case of an accounts software basically accusing someone of doing something they didn't, not sure if you know but it's taken some postmasters years to clear their name after being accused (and jailed) for fraud due to an error in the accounts software the post office forced them to use, and even now the post office refuse to acknowledge the software was at fault and some people are still in jail, not strictly related I know, but whenever I hear of big business vs little guy and accounting software is involved, I tend to automatically wonder just who is making the mistake/telling the porkies.

writing to MP's about what a bunch of rotters Pirtek are. He could have employed a real lawyer to bring a real appeal in a real court. But his ego wouldn't allow it - he would rather lose everything than obey (or appeal) a court order. And now he has achieved what he wanted.

So you know the history of the case personally? Been to every hearing? Or have just read things and formed this opinion?

[Bungle]

It seems the eviction happened a few months ago and they have recently re taken possession of the house.

I can't think why it would be just Tom and Sue getting in on the act - although you can hear Ebert cherping away on the phone in one clip and Mrs J asks for " Guy's number " ( currently Cell 3 East Wing HMP Swansea )

In fact the eviction happened almost a year ago (Easter 2016).

It's not only Tom, Sue, Ebert & Taylor who have been brainwashing them. They allowed this daft cow to sucker them into the freeman woo woo.

PS: EW posted this on the Beat the Bailiffs and Banks Facebook page last night.


Elizabeth Watson
7 hrs

"Homelessness" is White Collar crime in disguise! More & more are seeing it for what it is - totally unnecessary. Let's examine causes shall we?

Bob & Marie Jackson turned to me for help before xmas last year. Bob & Marie were brutally evicted during Feb/March 2016 without being afforded any due process of Law by Luton County Court, and with no valid paperwork, no lawful warrant, no hearing to try their defence - which defence was precluded because the claim was vexatiously bought with evident conspiracy to asset strip them of their family home by unscrupulous lawyers.

This couple were literally railroaded through an abuse of the court process, and all this was due to White Collar fraud by Squires solicitors (now trading as Squire Patton Boggs) who also abused the Insolvency process via fraudulent "bankruptcies" in order to gain control of their Estate - the bogus bankruptcies were invalidly set up, no Statement of truth, no genuine creditors proven, no valid petition, no proof of debt etc.

The ONLY option open to Patton Boggs was to re-negotiate any valid debt - but this means the debt first has to be proven!! this is why dishonest unscrupulous criminal "officers of the court" parading as officials seek back-door routes for a 'quick fix' by stealing. If we don't rout out these practices, it will get far worse. Its up to us to rise up in lawful rebellion!

It was merely a dispute over an unproven franchise matter with PIRTEK, involving a relatively small sum of approx £45,000 - totally disproportionate to the value of their £600,000 house!

My heart went out to this couple in their early 60's when I heard that large numbers of police and bailiffs had turned up at their property at dawn when they were still asleep, shortly before the Easter break in 2016, and began drilling through the locks to illegally force entry, and they were relegated to sleeping on the living room floor of their daughter's home over Easter.

So I spontaneously rang up the BBC to share the shocking story, hoping some breakthrough might occur - so am very grateful that it did! Good ol' Beeb - they're great when they come to the rescue where there's genuine need and a grave injustice.

Now, apparently, the villains are trying to fraudulently transfer stolen goods and have put the house up for auction (the usual tricks) - but there are still penalties under the new CPS and Criminal Justice Act 2015 Rules and they could find themselves serving 14 years behind bars! (including those aiding & abetting - its no good them saying "not me guv" - it'll be too late)

An obvious case of both insolvency and court abuse coupled with lawlessness and police acting in dereliction of their duty and the Luton County Court demonstrating a wholesale failure to uphold the Law. The evidence suggests that a shadow court may have been used, given the huge numbers of serious procedural irregularities and lawlessness of it all.

(By Elizabeth Watson - Soon we will set up SOVEREIGN PROPERTY ALLIANCE to protect property owners rights and defend the rights of lawful occupriers - watch this space!

Also, Check out JUDGE WATCH & LIAR LOANS FB sites)

[Bungle]

Spooky or what?

No wonder the family are friends with Tom & Sue. They also have a daughter with similar traits to Amanda.

She posted this on Beat the Banks and Bailiffs Facebook page on 11th April. Seems there may a brother as well (Robert Rae). He has posted up some videos.



Lisa Rae

Tomorrow my parents beautiful home of 26 years is going up for auction. They have 'never' missed a mortgage payment. To say this has been a nightmare is an understatement.


To be made homeless when you should be going into retirement is a feeling you cannot describe. 
They are honest, hard working, law abiding people. 


My dad brought a franchise & made a success of his business. However at the end of his 10 years the franchisor unlawfully demanded £30k!


Being dragged through the courts &. trying to defend himself against a large company he stood no chance. It is now 4 years from the start of this - of hell, heartbreak & unbelievable stress.... They have made him bankrupt, throwing a bill of over half a million pounds at him. They also froze my 91 year old Nan's (who has dementia) bank account which she only had her pension paid into, so they could not pay her care home costs.


They are trying to make my mum bankrupt now as well.


They were forcibly evicted from they're home & given 15 mins to leave!

They have forced their way back in & are still fighting!!! Good on them because I think I would have given up long ago.

It looks like they have opened up a can of worms as people are now getting interested in the story, & they now have nothing to lose.

If this doesn't put you off buying a franchise then nothing will!!

They are not only doing this to my parents. See the article in the Scottish Sunday Times from yesterday!

These people are like the mafia.

Please share my post.

The more publicity this gets the better.

[AndyPandy]

So basically, the franchise company won a claim in Court for £30k, 4 years ago. legal costs and bankruptcy costs over the 4 years have amounted to £500k - that's an eye watering amount btw

so they've been granted a possession order on a £600k property for a £530k amount, not as disproportionate as at first seems.

[guilty]

I think Eddie 'Jacko' Jackson should have his own thread.

Elizabeth Watson the injunction can be worded to prevent any trespasser coming within a 100 metre radius of the property

So if you intend to be a trespasser, don't forget to wear your 'TRESPASSER' t-shirt. This will ensure that innocent pedestrians and motorists passing by the house, and the neighbours and their children, are not arrested for being within 100 metres.
The bus company and the posties may have to amend their routes accordingly.

[hucknallred]

So basically, the franchise company won a claim in Court for £30k, 4 years ago. legal costs and bankruptcy costs over the 4 years have amounted to £500k - that's an eye watering amount btw

so they've been granted a possession order on a £600k property for a £530k amount, not as disproportionate as at first seems.

I believe the bill is at £43k, take the daughters figures with a pinch of salt.
Also the stuff about Gran's account is suspect. I'd have thought Mrs J. has POA for Gran's accounts if she has dementia (been there, done that). I can't see a care home chucking her out on the street.

I agree, this discussion needs a Jacko thread of its own.

[longdog]

Also the stuff about Gran's account is suspect. I'd have thought Mrs J. has POA for Gran's accounts if she has dementia (been there, done that). I can't see a care home chucking her out on the street.

Wasn't there something about the hiding of assets? It's quite possible the administrators of the bankruptcy took action against granny's account if they thought it was being used as a hiding place.

[FatGambit]

Did I sleep for a year or does everybody mean Easter 2015?

[#six]

Tom has made an interesting (no sarcasm) post on ETFOTB concerning Jury Nullification.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/5311314 ... 176919977/

He is 100% correct, for a change. Juries do have the right to ignore the law when deciding if someone is guilty of not guilty. This has been the a cornerstone of the UK judicial system since the Bushel Case (1670) and was reaffirmed during the trial of Clive Ponting (1980s). However, why he chose to use an example form the USA is beyond me when there are valid UK cases to refer to. And I don't know what he expects to gain from this. Eviction proceedings are always jury free