Quatloos!

In fact I distinctly remember Sue shouting at the bailiffs what a state it is in and they are “bloody welcome to it”

some idiot wrote:doesn't look like a family home.

Only one person lives in it. So... yeah.

Well if it's such an eye sore Amanda your numpty (we cancelled the endowment policy because we didn't have a clue what it was) parents won't want it back will they, not that there's a cat in hell's chance of that happening despite all the bleating about warrants and idiocy about 'we paid the mortgage' when clearly they didn't!

I'm thinking we should have a whip-round to pay for some face-to-face professional legal advice for the Crawfords.

How long do you think it would take to explain that as far as the criminal case is concerned it wasn't legally his property and in the civil case he'd not paid off the capital.

It took me under a minute to type it so I reckon five minutes should do the job.

longdog wrote:I'm thinking we should have a whip-round to pay for some face-to-face professional legal advice for the Crawfords.

How long do you think it would take to explain that as far as the criminal case is concerned it wasn't legally his property and in the civil case he'd not paid off the capital.

It took me under a minute to type it so I reckon five minutes should do the job.

But surely those damn solicitors are in cahoots with the banks

I know they keep on about the warrant and how it doesn't exist/they never received it and even if they managed to get a judge to agree with them it wouldn't change the situation, they would still owe over £40,000 which they don't have in order to settle the outstanding mortgage balance(as per Tom's original post on GOODF), so they would still be without the bungalow.

The continued delusion is just sad and is consuming the life's of Tom, Sue and Amanda when they should be focusing on relaxing in retirement and their family respectively.

Tom you've admitted in court the mortgage was not changed and that is a matter of public record so please stop yourself and Amanda from spouting the opposite it makes you look foolish and a liar.

Like they'd listen. They're completely invested in the fantasy that their home has been stolen. There are transcripts in this thread where judges told them exactly why all their beliefs are wrong. They don't listen, or even seem to acknowledge the relevance of what was said.

Tom Crawford will continue with this until he dies. Which, at his current rate of deterioration, I estimate in the next year or two. Only then will the Battle for Crawford Castle truly end. I don't think either of his children will take up the crusade, as they've done little this whole time other than post on Facebook.

rumpelstilzchen wrote:

Hercule Parrot wrote:

rumpelstilzchen wrote:The Crawfrauds will never acknowledge the fact that they stopped making the endowment payments.

Exactly. They maintained the due interest payments (mostly) for 25yrs, but did nothing about repaying the underlying capital. The lender offered to change them to a normal repayment mortgage decades ago, and they refused. This dismal catastrophe of retirement is entirely their own doing, but TC isn't man enough to deal with that.

The Crawfords appear to believe that paying the interest payments for twenty-five years is good enough but anyone who has a basic understanding of endowment mortgages would instantly see they are wrong on that point.

We know the Crawfords read this forum so I am going to issue a challenge to them.

Tom, Amanda, Sue and Craig. You repeatedly state that innocent people are having their homes stolen by corrupt banks working with corrupt barristers and a corrupt judiciary. My challenge is this: Show us one example where someone who had an interest only mortgage, had paid every monthly payment over the entire term and then had repaid the original sum borrowed upon completion of the mortgage term, subsequently had their house "stolen" by the original lender.

makes one wonder if they only pay the interest on their credit cards. and if not, why not. same thing.

JimUk1 wrote: Eyesore? It's a vast improvement. I'm interested in it now

when you're a troll and live in hovels, I imagine it is an eyesore.

I often wonder if a qualified lawyer would give up an hour of his time to sit down, listen to everything TC has to say, and then slowly explain why he is completely wrong, and why he needs to move on, would TC actually listen? These people are quite cultish, in many ways, so perhaps a "deprogrammer" can mediate the meeting, and at least provide some support and guidance, on how to move on from this.

His house is no longer recognizable, his credit is undoubtedly shot, he has blotted his copybook in the eyes of the law, has been declared vexatious, and lost a ton of equity, likely owing more than there was. Despite what his crack legal team say, he is now further away from his house than he has ever been, and has no chance in hell to get it back. At this point, even if he were right, which he isn't, I don't think he would get his house, just compensation of value. He needs to face reality and realize the house is never ever going to be his, unless he buys it of the current owner, which I think is highly unlikely. I also wonder, if his advisors took any money, if he has any legal grounds to sue them. While I doubt they have a pot to piss in between them, and I am sure they will practice their own legal theories while representing themselves, so it could be an easy win here, although prepare for many dead trees, emails, and liens.

TC needs to keep speaking to the masses though, but he should show how listening to idiots spouting legal advice on the internet will not lead to success. Can he be turned, possibly. It really is in his bests interests to understand the truth, accept it, and move on, while attempting to make something positive from this. If he accepts it, I am sure his family will too, and Amanda can turn her spew the other way, and direct it to the people who really screwed her dad, her advisors.

Well, back to wishful wandering about what could be... I am sure that will never happen.

I would hire the cult deprogrammer, and not bother with the lawyer. There's no point in trying to explain the law until they can consider the possibility that they're wrong. They're a long way from being ready for that.

They also have such a siege mentality about quatloos.com they would reject the suggestion only because it came from one of us. Which is sad, because the members of this site have offered much better advice than the people they've chosen to align with. I even think we've been more compassionate. But it never occurs to them they were let down not by us, but by the people whose advice they relied on.

One other key issue that the Crawfrauds don't seem to grasp is that in the general scheme of things, the existence of a warrant of possession is not that critical to him losing his home. The warrant is simply an authorisation from the Court to execute the Order of Possession which is the product of the Possession Hearing in Court. It is the Order which records the Judge's decision to award possession to the claimant, not the Warrant. A Warrant is only required when the householder refuses to heed the Order. In most cases, the householder does not see the Warrant but is served with a Notice of Eviction.

While Tom is banging on about the existence or validity of the Warrant he is carefully avoiding the fact that he knows that an Order of Possession was made and indeed he tried more than once to appeal it - with a spectacular and embarrassing lack of success. He has also publicly acknowledged that he was served with a Notice of Eviction.

Of course we know and have seen that there was a valid Warrant of Possession but even if he could prove that there was some technical fault with it or even that it didn't exist, I strongly suspect that at this stage in proceedings it would not result in him getting his house back. He has repeatedly tried and failed to challenge the fundamental decision that at the end of his mortgage term, he still owed the capital sum, has never repaid it and consequently possession was awarded to the bank. He can bleat about warrants and fees all he likes but it doesn't change the basic reason why he is not still living in Fearne Chase.

TheNewSaint wrote:Like they'd listen. ... Tom Crawford will continue with this until he dies.

Yes.

Tom initially agreed with most of the reasoning in the Godspeed judgement, but has since disputed it entirely. Amanda has followed his lead.

Tom has now invested too much in his delusions for a withdrawal to be easy. A psychological rather than legal approach might work, but he wouldn't cooperate with that.

littleFred wrote:Tom initially agreed with most of the reasoning in the Godspeed judgement, but has since disputed it entirely. Amanda has followed his lead.

Let's not forget Ebert's very large role in this. Ebert convinced Tom that he "won" the Godsmark ruling. letissier14 posted the documents earlier this thread. In them, you can that Ebert gave Tom many of the stupid ideas he now drones on about: missing warrants and unpaid fees and whatnot. He even coaches Tom to thank the judge, because Ebert's asinine legal analysis says that the judge gave Tom everything he needs to win his house back. By the time the case got to appeal, Tom was so convinced of all this malarkey he said:

Mr Crawford : No, no. The judgment was fine. It was excellent. But in fact the order that was passed down it didn’t reflect the actual judgment.

Go to hell, Mr. Ebert. Go. To. Hell.

Hercule Parrot wrote:

rumpelstilzchen wrote:The Crawfrauds will never acknowledge the fact that they stopped making the endowment payments.

Exactly. They maintained the due interest payments (mostly) for 25yrs, but did nothing about repaying the underlying capital. The lender offered to change them to a normal repayment mortgage decades ago, and they refused. This dismal catastrophe of retirement is entirely their own doing, but TC isn't man enough to deal with that.

Also, don't forget, one of Tom's early posts on GOODF was asking how to get out of repaying the capital which was coming due in a few months.

Normal Wisdom wrote:Of course we know and have seen that there was a valid Warrant of Possession but even if he could prove that there was some technical fault with it or even that it didn't exist, I strongly suspect that at this stage in proceedings it would not result in him getting his house back.

IANAL but my understanding of English Law is that it would NEVER happen. The current owner made a legal purchase, you can't undo it now.

Yes, Mr Ebert (and others such as Guy Taylor and Ceylon) played major parts in fostering Tom's delusions.

If the warrant wasn't valid, it wouldn't make any difference because it merely enforced a court possession order. This warrant nonsense is a double delusion because even if Tom was correct, it wouldn't help him. It's just garbage that has got stuck in his head.

If that possession order were somehow overturned, declared void, Tom would be entitled to be returned to the position he was in, as if the possession hadn't occurred. But I think the new owners have solid title, so Tom would instead get the money from Bradford and Bingley or whatever they are called today.

But that won't happen either.

With reference to the video about an alleged poster on Quatloo's being the person given a suspended sentence, would I be correct to say at least two of the three people in that video also have criminal records ?

I was just watching Judge Judy (I'm easily entertained) where the case bore a strong resemblance to the Crawfraud scenario. A builder who'd bought a foreclosed property was suing the previous owner - a batty old lady - for harassment. She'd put posters up all round the neighbourhood with his picture on them claiming he'd 'stolen' the house using fake deeds. He'd had to take out restraining orders against her.

She wasn't a FOTL and wasn't wearing a panama, but apart from that, it could have been TC standing there. She'd brought four separate court cases trying to prove the house had been stolen from her, that she'd paid off the mortgage years before, that she had no mortgage, and that the paperwork had been forged, etc, etc,. She'd lost every case in no uncertain terms, yet she - and her daughter (who wasn't wearing a onesie) - were persistent in their belief that they still owned the house.

Needless to say Judge Judy wasn't having any of it and she awarded the new owner $5,000 (the maximum JJ award).

I do hope some short tempered scaffolder buys Tom's house....

getoutofdebtfools wrote:I do hope some short tempered scaffolder buys Tom's house....

I think we are past the short-tempered-builder stage by now, but the sale to a Doberman breeder would be welcome.