Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Footloose52]

Thank you - I had Royal Life in mind but didn't recall Phoenix. That means to me that the policy was sold off to a reinsurance business to take legacy business off the original insurers books. That is a regular occurence with Friends Life having been one of the biggest players in recent years until they were taken over last year.

Royal Life became part of RSA Group (Alliance Insurance were founded by the Rothschilds by the way). I would conclude that the policy was therefore of a type that was discontinued and sold off.

Phoenix are actually what is left of Pearl Assurance which, although operating in the UK at one time with headquarters in Peterborough was actually an Australian company. They are a Cayman Islands company with their UK main office in Juxon House in London.

[Jeffrey]

I was gonna type something else out but I realized I wasn't clear on one point.

Was the endowment and mortgage one monthly payment or did they have to write out two separate checks each month. I always assumed it was two checks but that's an assumption on my part. Because under that scenario, when they signed the mortgage with the bank, they knew they had to write two separate checks each month as proven by the fact that they did it for several years.

[Footloose52]

Two separate payments, probably by direct debit or standing order, most unlikely to be by cheque..

[Normal Wisdom]

I was gonna type something else out but I realized I wasn't clear on one point.

Was the endowment and mortgage one monthly payment or did they have to write out two separate checks each month. I always assumed it was two checks but that's an assumption on my part. Because under that scenario, when they signed the mortgage with the bank, they knew they had to write two separate checks each month as proven by the fact that they did it for several years.

They were separate payments to separate organisations. As you say, payments of the endowment policy premiums were made to Royal Life from Mrs C's account for about three years and then ceased. Nobody knows why but my speculation that it was because they thought it was merely an optional extra fits the bill.

We will never know exactly what happened in that period between 1991 when the payments stopped and 1999 when the lack of a method of repaying the capital finally came to a head. I think that for most of that time, the Crawfords simply did not know what they had done and their confusion also confused B&B who assumed the Crawfords had some idea what they were talking about. Perhaps if someone from B&B had sat them down and gone right back to basics on the whole issue the crisis might have been averted. Instead there was an element of talking at cross purposes which simply made things worse.

The other thing that is evident in those years is that Tom had very little involvement with the mortgage. Mrs C did all the talking with B&B and paid the endowment premium from her account. Hence Tom, who almost certainly doesn't really understand what is going on is getting all his information from Mrs C who also misunderstands the situation and from B&B who are confused about what Mrs C is asking and send the couple letters that Tom doesn't understand. The flowers and champagne from B&B were a result of the confusion and only served to convince Tom and Sue that they were right and B&B were wrong when in fact the opposite was true.

The situation could have been resolved by the Crawfords going into their B&B branch and admitting that they were confused about the situation and seeking an explanation. However, that doesn't appear to be Tom's style.

[ArthurWankspittle]

We will never know exactly what happened in that period between 1991 when the payments stopped and 1999 when the lack of a method of repaying the capital finally came to a head.

I suspect the FSA or whatever it was in those days told B&B to check up on who had or hadn't a repayment vehicle.

I think that for most of that time, the Crawfords simply did not know what they had done and their confusion also confused B&B who assumed the Crawfords had some idea what they were talking about. Perhaps if someone from B&B had sat them down and gone right back to basics on the whole issue the crisis might have been averted. Instead there was an element of talking at cross purposes which simply made things worse.

But the B&B did try to sort it out with them, at least in a phone conversation. I think Tom didn't understand the situation and just got annoyed and withdrew from the discussion. In the Godsmark judgement IIRC there is mention of a B&B record of a phone conversation with a Crawford. When this was raised Tom's response was along the lines of "it wasn't me"; not "I don't remember that happening. It must have been with Sue" it was a very terse "they never spoke to me" which is of course possible but I felt when reading the judgement that Tom was annoyed at being shown not to have cooperated when he could have. I also think that neither Tom nor Sue fully understood the mortgage product they had and that whatever the B&B said in that phone conversation didn't fully get through to them.
See judgement paras 25 & 26 and 32-36.

[AndyPandy]

I think it was further confused as appear to have taken out a £5k loan after the mortgage, secured against the property, that was a repayment type of loan. So their account statements said 'endowment / repayment' referring to the two separate loans, which I think they just took as being the one mortgage account, just further adding to the state of confusion !

[Chaos]

We will never know exactly what happened in that period between 1991 when the payments stopped and 1999 when the lack of a method of repaying the capital finally came to a head. I think that for most of that time, the Crawfords simply did not know what they had done

finding it hard to believe that one stops paying for a major purchase, has extra money now that they stopped paying for major purchase, gets letters regarding stopping of payment of major purchase, yet doesn't know what they did.

[SteveUK]

That's life in cuckoo land for you....

[JimUk1]

From what I can gather from Tom's YouTube videos, he seems to believe the court didn't give any consideration (as he calls it) to the usual freeman thesis that because the central bank can create money; he therefore doesn't owe anymore that what he has paid to the high street bank.

I think he's so caught up blaming everyone but himself that this may never even end.

Interesting to see what happens this week.

Also I remember reading somewhere about any other Crawford style freeman, Dragutin Popovic. Any person shed any light?

[Footloose52]

Popovic was made bankrupt in 2015 https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/2522198

[getoutofdebtfools]

Given Tom's recent Youtube Freetard ramblings of 'dead entities' and 'corporations' I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing "Tom of the family Crawfraud".

Maybe the first member of this forum to feel the wrath of his private troll prosecutions can tell us if that's how his name is written?...

[AndyPandy]

Given Tom's recent Youtube Freetard ramblings of 'dead entities' and 'corporations' I wonder how long it will be before we start seeing "Tom of the family Crawfraud".

Maybe the first member of this forum to feel the wrath of his private troll prosecutions can tell us if that's how his name is written?...

Hmm difficult to start proceedings against someone from 'No fixed Abode' or being a Vexatious Litigant. I Wonder in all the posturing how they're planning on overcoming those minor obstacles !!

Maybe Address: c/o 3 Fearn Chase, Tom of the family Crawfraud, do you think that'd fool the Royal Courts of Justice ??

[Interobang]

Maybe Address: c/o 3 Fearn Chase, Tom of the family Crawfraud, do you think that'd fool the Royal Courts of Justice ??

I would suggest mail wouldn't make it to him via this address either.

?!

[TheNewSaint]

Hmm difficult to start proceedings against someone from 'No fixed Abode' or being a Vexatious Litigant. I Wonder in all the posturing how they're planning on overcoming those minor obstacles !!

And the obstacle that no one has committed any actual offense.

[AndyPandy]

Hmm difficult to start proceedings against someone from 'No fixed Abode' or being a Vexatious Litigant. I Wonder in all the posturing how they're planning on overcoming those minor obstacles !!

And the obstacle that no one has committed any actual offense.

But Tom and Amanda say so..... so it must be true

[AndyPandy]

This exchange on EFOTB about 3 Fearn Chase.. Hilarious

Lyn's Shucksmith What happening at the house as it looks like it is being pulled down xx
Like · 1 hr

Amanda Pike renovating it apparently, having met them I dread to think about their taste and what they are doing *cringe* however #TheyAreWastingTheirMoney!
Like · 4 · 1 hr · Edited

Dawn Hebblethwaite Well they'd better renovate it back again soon because it's not theirs. xx

[TheNewSaint]

Which suggests that Crawford supporters are going by the house and reporting any goings-on to them. Nice.

[AndyPandy]

It's the spitters comment that got me:

Dawn Hebblethwaite Well they'd better renovate it back again soon because it's not theirs. xx

How do you renovate a shabby little bungalow back to being a shabby little bungalow !!???

[Interobang]

It's the spitters comment that got me:

Dawn Hebblethwaite Well they'd better renovate it back again soon because it's not theirs. xx

How do you renovate a shabby little bungalow back to being a shabby little bungalow !!???

And shabby it was! As for taste and style that's coming from Onesie Amanda!

[Fearnchase]

I was in Nottingham today so popped down to Fern chase (as i was in Carlton hill on business) the owner was there working on the house.

I suggested that should Tom or any of his fanboys/family come round again , or should Tom get found guilty (and there is no restraining order) in place then he should seek a civil injunction to keep Ol Tom away.

He said The crawfords havent got a cats chance in hell of getting place back. Nice enough guy