Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[Kay Powell]

Forsyth, can you point to a similar case? I'm not legally trained, so I have looked online at the law relating to criminal damage, and I see where you're coming from. However, I can't see how Tom could claim that he was damaging the house because he genuinely believed that it was his; such a claim would make him mad, as sane people don't go around deliberately damaging their own homes. Hang on a mo - he is mad.

[ArthurWankspittle]

If this case is about criminal damage then I would expect that the result will depend far more on Tom's honestly held beliefs than on the ownership of the house. If if can be shown that Tom honestly believed that he still owned the house then he couldn't have committed criminal damage to it.

Nice defence but you can't reasonable expect Tom to believe he still owns the house after he's gone through several court cases which resulted in the repossession of the house. If you want to make the case that he's lost it mentally, e.g. dementia then I'll go with that defence otherwise not a chance.

[Bungle]

If he genuinely believed that he still owned the house, then the most obvious method of gaining entry would be by the front door.....not the bloody roof.

I don't believe for one minute that he thinks that he still owns the bungalow.

The problem that he and his family have is that when the bungalow was repossessed, there were hundreds of people supporting the family. That all changed when it was realised that he and his family were being guided by Ceylon, Ebert etc and were heavily into the murky Sovereign Citizen world.

The position now, is that all that external support has disappeared.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The problem that he and his family have is that when the bungalow was repossessed, there were hundreds of people supporting the family. That all changed when it was realised that he and his family were being guided by Ceylon, Ebert etc and were heavily into the murky Sovereign Citizen world.

And lying about the situation. The first time people turned out there were hundreds supporting an old cancer sufferer who had been stitched up by his mortgage lender. The more the truth emerged, the less support he got, and now he's down to a core of delusionalists as his only support.

[aesmith]

The fact that a magistrate has said that it appears that the case will be about who owns the house is irrelevant as they will have just repeated what Tom has said is the basis for his case.

Also bear in mind that Magistrates are not legally trained, so an off the cuff comment by one who isn't even involved in the case is certainly no sort of authority.

By the way, didn't he default on the interest as well, more than once?

[daveBeeston]

The fact that a magistrate has said that it appears that the case will be about who owns the house is irrelevant as they will have just repeated what Tom has said is the basis for his case.

Also bear in mind that Magistrates are not legally trained, so an off the cuff comment by one who isn't even involved in the case is certainly no sort of authority.

By the way, didn't he default on the interest as well, more than once?

Thats not entirely accurate, Magistrates don't have to be legally trained or have a legal qualification but that doesn't mean that all Magistrates have no legal training.

And yes he did default on the interest payments several times and thats what lead to the possesion order being granted due to him once again defualting on the payments.

[Normal Wisdom]

The fact that a magistrate has said that it appears that the case will be about who owns the house is irrelevant as they will have just repeated what Tom has said is the basis for his case.

Also bear in mind that Magistrates are not legally trained, so an off the cuff comment by one who isn't even involved in the case is certainly no sort of authority.

By the way, didn't he default on the interest as well, more than once?

Thats not entirely accurate, Magistrates don't have to be legally trained or have a legal qualification but that doesn't mean that all Magistrates have no legal training.

And yes he did default on the interest payments several times and thats what lead to the possesion order being granted due to him once again defualting on the payments.

Ultimately, the possession order was granted because Tom should have continued to pay interest until he had repaid the capital sum that he had originally borrowed. Obviously, he had no means of doing so because he or Mrs C had long since cancelled the endowment policy. In his wisdom Tom decided that he could stop making any payments once the original 25 year mortgage term expired and so the possession order was granted because he had not maintained the terms of it's suspension by continuing to pay interest.

[Bungle]

Ultimately, the possession order was granted because Tom should have continued to pay interest until he had repaid the capital sum that he had originally borrowed. Obviously, he had no means of doing so because he or Mrs C had long since cancelled the endowment policy. In his wisdom Tom decided that he could stop making any payments once the original 25 year mortgage term expired and so the possession order was granted because he had not maintained the terms of it's suspension by continuing to pay interest.

Very well explained Normal.

Before the actual repossession, Tom also went to court a few times to get the possession order suspended, so he clearly knew that he was in arrears and knew what would happen if he stopped paying.

I have been curious for a long time as to whether he was into the freeman woo woo before these court cases or whether this nonsense was fed to him when he was introduced to GOODF and Ceylon.

Amanda is a different matter altogether !!!

[SteveUK]

I suspect he was starting to slide before being formally taken under the goodf wing. His first post in the site was about paying a mortgage with a PM. Clearly he could've been somewhat influenced by reading it before that post, but I suspect he was that way inclined beforehand.

[Kay Powell]

Bungle, when you say that Amanda is a different matter, do you mean that she was into the FMOTL woo woo before Tom? I've just washed ashore...

[Normal Wisdom]

Bungle, when you say that Amanda is a different matter, do you mean that she was into the FMOTL woo woo before Tom? I've just washed ashore...

Amanda, like the rest of the family, has been an unquestioning supporter of Tom and has been prepared to echo any old nonsense that Tom spouts but she had never heard of the freeman woo until Tom brought it home.

The original Tom Crawford thread is here:
viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10330&hilit=tom+crawford

[Normal Wisdom]

I suspect he was starting to slide before being formally taken under the goodf wing. His first post in the site was about paying a mortgage with a PM. Clearly he could've been somewhat influenced by reading it before that post, but I suspect he was that way inclined beforehand.

Tom had already flirted with White Rabbit's mortgage nonsense before contacting GOODF. Of course before that he had tried more formal routes of challenging the situation through the courts and Financial Ombudsman and I am convinced that someone was directing him even with those.

[SteveUK]

If only he'd tried the 'pay your mortgage' theory......

[letissier14]

I have been curious for a long time as to whether he was into the freeman woo woo before these court cases or whether this nonsense was fed to him when he was introduced to GOODF and Ceylon.

Amanda is a different matter altogether !!!

Tom joined GOODF on Tue Apr 23, 2013, and mentioned he had been reading stuff on there long before he decided to join, and also mentioned that his son Craig had found GOODF before him.

[Bungle]

I have been curious for a long time as to whether he was into the freeman woo woo before these court cases or whether this nonsense was fed to him when he was introduced to GOODF and Ceylon.

Amanda is a different matter altogether !!!

Tom joined GOODF on Tue Apr 23, 2013, and mentioned he had been reading stuff on there long before he decided to join, and also mentioned that his son Craig had found GOODF before him.

And look where he is three years later.

His and Sue's bungalow that was almost paid for and where they had lived for many years has gone.

He and Sue as pensioners will forever be reliant on the private rented sector and presumably, housing benefit.

The Ministry of Justice have publicly named him as a vexatious litigant.

He has been arrested.

He has been publicly deemed a laughing stock.

With the exception of die hard FMotL and Sov Cit types (by this I specifically refer to Ceylon, Ebert, Guy Taylor and O’Bernicia), his supporters have all disappeared.

He has been shown to be nothing more that the freetards guinea pig and puppet.

I'm sure that there is more, but that will do for now.

[hucknallred]

His and Sue's bungalow that was almost paid for and where they had lived for many years has gone.

Have to pull you up on that one. It was no nearer being paid off than it was in 1988 whilst they were still in possession of it.

Here's one to mull over, if one of his helpers had gone to him & said.

"Your home is in danger of repossession, but I can help. All you need to do is pay around £30 a week & you're guaranteed to stay in your bungalow whilst you fight the injustice through the courts."

TH "£30, that sounds good, who do I pay it to?"

Helper "Bradford & Bingley, it's the interest on your Mortgage"

[Forsyth]

Forsyth, can you point to a similar case? I'm not legally trained, so I have looked online at the law relating to criminal damage, and I see where you're coming from. However, I can't see how Tom could claim that he was damaging the house because he genuinely believed that it was his; such a claim would make him mad, as sane people don't go around deliberately damaging their own homes. Hang on a mo - he is mad.

Jaggard v. Dickinson 1980 would seem to be relevant.
swarb.co.uk
sixthformlaw.info
oup.com

The off-line reference I have here adds the following quote to the details provided in the links:

The court is required by section 5(3) to focus on the existence of the belief, not its intellectual
soundness; and a belief can be just as much honestly held if it is induced by intoxication, as if it
stems from stupidity, forgetfulness or inattention

It should probably be emphasized that in most other offences a mistaken belief due to intoxication is not a defence, it is the explicit wording of the act that allows it to be used here and, by extension, "stupidity, forgetfulness or inattention".

I'm sure there will be much more to say on the subject once the case has been heard, regardless of which way the verdict goes.

[Kay Powell]

Hucknallred, I disagree. The value of the property had increased to about £160k, and Tom only had to come up with about £43k and it would have been his.

Forsyth, thanks. Very interesting.

[hucknallred]

Hucknallred, I disagree. The value of the property had increased to about £160k, and Tom only had to come up with about £43k and it would have been his.

Hey it's fine to disagree, but the comment said it was almost paid off. It wasn't, not a penny of the capital had been paid off, the current market value is irrelevant.

It's been discussed ad nauseum on here, but UK interest rates were at 0.5% (now 0.25%) for years, his interest payments would have literally been a fraction of what they were at the outset, they could have overpaid which would have reduced the capital automatically, or did what myself & may others did (I also took out a mortgage in 1988), which was not to reduce the repayments when the rates dropped & chip away at the capital, or to remortgage entirely.

Sadly they didn't, there seems to be a serious lack of financial savvy.

[NYGman]

Actually, I think he paid off about £117 of principal when the policy lapsed, but I could be a bit off with that amount. It is semantics really, he lost approximately 3/4 of his equity, and all the appreciation that had occurred while he was servicing the interest on the note. He hadn't almost paid off his mortgage, but only owed about 1/4 of its then worth (Discounted now due to condition, notoriety, etc) and would have been able to sell it, pay off the mortgage, and take the appreciation to buy another home outright. However, his greed, and feeling he didn't owe anymore, resulted in a total loss for Tom. Unfortunately, the poor advice he received cost him a lot! Victory!