Losing Your Home, Crawford Style

[doublelong]

Tom's busy preparing for his groundbreaking hearing next week . This is his latest posting on EFOB

What's EFOB if you don't mind me asking? I assume not Estimated Fuel On Board in this context.

It's their facebook group "eviction fraud of the banks". I don't use facebook so I can not link but it but by all accounts it is just a handful of the last of his supporters, the completely fanatical ones.

[Bungle]

It's their facebook group "eviction fraud of the banks". I don't use facebook so I can not link but it but by all accounts it is just a handful of the last of his supporters, the completely fanatical ones.

For newcomers or casual visitors, if we refer to EFOB, we are referring to the Facebook site as explained above. It is an 'public' group (meaning anyone can view but you need to be a Facebook user to post comments).

When Tom & Sue's bungalow was repossessed, he had a lot of supporters (mainly because the press zoomed in on the fact that Tom was a 'cancer sufferer'). The EFOB site was set up around this time. It has about 4,500 registered users.

When set up, many of Tom's supporters also changed their Facebook profile to resemble Tom's F/B profile of him wearing a white fedora hat with the slogan; 'We are Tom Crawford'.

Over time, almost all his supporters have gone and now, EFOB has no more than 6 or 8 posts a day, many of them reposts from an Ireland Hub F/B page (despite Irish laws having no relevance over here).

There are only two diehard supporters now sharing Tom's profile (daughter Amanda and Mark Conway).

Not sure if this link to EFOB works:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/531131453679786/

[noblepa]

The problems we're finding at work is where people borrowed on interest-only, maybe had a pension or an ISA they intended to use to pay off their mortgage but for whatever reason didn't maintain the investment.

The selling standards in place before 2004 - and definitely before the FCA Mortgage Market Review in 2014 - were very different. And around 2005-2007 when lenders (including my employers) were offering self-cert mortgages, people borrowed far more than they should have done, interest-only, with no thought of how they'd pay it back other than anticipating that their house would be worth three times as much as they owed once the mortgage reached the end of its term. The idea that prices would fall and then only recover slightly never occurred to them - despite the fact that they'd all lived through the property boom/crash of the late 80s/early 90s.

Anyway, relying on the property going up in value is all very well if the loan-to-value ratio is relatively small, but if there's no much equity, people are in trouble.

We have a lot of borrowers coming to the end of their interest-only mortgages that we're now having to manage. We have the 25 or 30 year terms where the endowment is long-gone or has drastically under-performed (in which case the endowment provider will have issued warnings years ago about the need to do something about it). If it's still the original amount borrowed (i.e no further advances), these borrowers should have enough equity to buy somewhere outright.

But we also have the mortgages taken out ten years ago when lending standards were much more relaxed, where the borrower simply lied about having a repayment vehicle. These were generally middle-aged, self-employed borrowers who might have had past credit problems, or were borrowing to consolidate other debts. Usually a high loan-to-value ratio.

While we don't want thousands of (mostly) elderly people losing their homes, at the same time we're not social landlords and so we can't extend the mortgage term for more than a year or so - and we'll only agree to it if the borrowers show they're taking steps to sell the property or raise a mortgage somewhere else.

But yeah, if Tom hadn't swallowed the woo pill, he'd have been able to sell and kept about £100K equity to buy somewhere else, or if he'd wanted to stay in the property, taken out a lifetime equity release mortgage (where no payments are due, interest is rolled up and the loan + interest are paid off when the last of the borrowers dies or goes into nursing care.)

EXCELLENT post mufc .

As you have explained, Tom and Sue found themselves in a position that affects many other people. It is not an uncommon situation. He could have sold up and moved elsewhere. His fault lay in believing the freeman woo woo.

Did he and Sue inherit her mother's house in time to have sold it and paid off their mortgage on the Fearn Chase house? That would seem to be another option. They certainly could have done so and settled the lawsuit relatively amicably, even if the inheritance came after the default.

Or, they could have moved into the inherited house, as they seem to have done, and sold the Fearn Chase property, paid off the mortgage and lived happily ever after. They would even have quite a bit of money in the bank.

[noblepa]

There are even worse financial instruments than interest-only loans.

Back in 1981, we moved from California to Ohio. At the time, interest rates were sky-high. A 30-year fixed rate mortgage, if you could get one, carried a rate or 17 or 18 percent interest.

I was only about 30 and our realtor talked us into a NEGATIVE AMORTIZATION loan. I forget the interest rate, but we weren't even paying enough to cover the interest. That meant that, for every month that went by, we owed MORE on the principle. The theory was twofold: first, that the value of the house would go up at the same rate as inflation (it didn't) and second, that my salary would go up as well (it did).

Needless to say, I refinanced that puppy as soon as the interest rates came down and the money supply loosened up. I have not heard of this kind of loan since then, thankfully.

As an aside for those who claim that banks create money out of thin air when they create a mortgage, at the time, I encountered several large, national banks that were perfectly solvent, who told me that they simply had no money to lend for mortgages, even at the astronomical rates of the time. There was nothing wrong with my credit rating, either. They really didn't have the money to lend.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Eviction the fraud of the bank (Facebook) a little coven of nutjobbeey

Although Elderly Fuckwit On Board is more accurate.

[Pox]

Did he and Sue inherit her mother's house in time to have sold it and paid off their mortgage on the Fearn Chase house?
.

At the time of the eviction Tom spoke about his M in Law being in the morgue so the timing was a bit out.

Tom also said that the eviction shouldn't have taken place because Sue was a 'vulnerable person ' because she had recently lost her mother.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Did he and Sue inherit her mother's house in time to have sold it and paid off their mortgage on the Fearn Chase house? That would seem to be another option. They certainly could have done so and settled the lawsuit relatively amicably, even if the inheritance came after the default.

Or, they could have moved into the inherited house, as they seem to have done, and sold the Fearn Chase property, paid off the mortgage and lived happily ever after. They would even have quite a bit of money in the bank.

Sue's mum died just before the final eviction, so using her inheritance to save Fearn Chase was not possible.
Although thinking about it, it might have been but you would have to be certain what was in her will, get an emergency high court order and probably a few other things needed to be in place. But then that wouldn't fit Tom's narrative either.

[SteveUK]

The interesting dynamic here could occur if

1) Tom still has a cost balance left over with B&B after all his Tom - foolery
2) B & B want it
3) they are the legal owner of said house = asset

Eviction mark 2?????

[ArthurWankspittle]

The interesting dynamic here could occur if

1) Tom still has a cost balance left over with B&B after all his Tom - foolery
2) B & B want it
3) they are the legal owner of said house = asset

Eviction mark 2?????

Have a read through the previous threads on the subject. At a court hearing Tom implied that he owed B&B or UKAR about £98k before he lost that case and presumably had those costs added on (that was after the £45k they sold Fearn Chase for was deducted too most likely). These things move slowly (will, probate etc. plus it getting to the top of the pile in UKAR to check the situation) but the possibility of it happening at some point I believe are reasonable. The really funny bit would be Tom trying to hide the asset SovCit style.

[Kay Powell]

Fearn Chase was sold for £55k. That means that Tom does, indeed, still owe a huge amount of money.

[SteveUK]

I guess he'll have to use that tried and tested JimmyWx11 method

[AndyPandy]

I guess he'll have to use that tried and tested JimmyWx11 method

So would that mean Tom Crawford isn't actually Tom Crawford any more? I do get a bit confused by what Jimmy's tried and tested method actually is?

[SteveUK]

I believe it involves losing your name followed by losing your house...

[mufc1959]

Does anyone have a link to Crawfords ombudsman decision ?

The Ombudsman has only been publishing decisions since April 2014, and I think Tom's involvement with the FOS pre-dated this.

[mufc1959]

I was only about 30 and our realtor talked us into a NEGATIVE AMORTIZATION loan. I forget the interest rate, but we weren't even paying enough to cover the interest. That meant that, for every month that went by, we owed MORE on the principle. The theory was twofold: first, that the value of the house would go up at the same rate as inflation (it didn't) and second, that my salary would go up as well (it did).

In the late 80s there was something similar in the UK - deferred interest mortgages. This was when interest rates were 10-12%. The mortgages were a disaster waiting to happen. Instead of paying the full contract rate of, say, 12%, for the first few years the borrower would pay, say, 6% (and so have a lower repayment, for this example £400 a month instead of £800). But this wasn't a discount, it was a deferment. The other £400 was added, month by month, to the outstanding balance, and interest accrued against it too.

The T&Cs were draconian - if a payment was missed, short or even, in some cases, late by even a day or two, the 'concession' was cancelled and the full payment became due. The borrowers were usually first-time buyers, financially unsophisticated and with little understanding of what they were being sold (generally by fairly dodgy brokers). All they knew was that they couldn't get a mortgage from a building society because they couldn't afford it, but they could afford this and it allowed them to buy a house.

But once they missed that first payment, they were on a hiding to nothing, because - as well as having to pay off any arrears - their monthly mortgage payments had gone back to the pre-deferment amount too.

They were only sold for a short time, thank God, they were horrendous products.

[Normal Wisdom]

Does anyone have a link to Crawfords ombudsman decision ?

The Ombudsman has only been publishing decisions since April 2014, and I think Tom's involvement with the FOS pre-dated this.

It definitely was available as I used an excerpt from it in one of my videos about Tom. I'll see if I can find it again.

[noblepa]

Did he and Sue inherit her mother's house in time to have sold it and paid off their mortgage on the Fearn Chase house? That would seem to be another option. They certainly could have done so and settled the lawsuit relatively amicably, even if the inheritance came after the default.

Or, they could have moved into the inherited house, as they seem to have done, and sold the Fearn Chase property, paid off the mortgage and lived happily ever after. They would even have quite a bit of money in the bank.

Sue's mum died just before the final eviction, so using her inheritance to save Fearn Chase was not possible.
Although thinking about it, it might have been but you would have to be certain what was in her will, get an emergency high court order and probably a few other things needed to be in place. But then that wouldn't fit Tom's narrative either.

But, I'm pretty sure that, had he approached the bank, even after they began proceedings against him, and stated his intent to sell one of the houses and pay off the balance due, they probably would have put the eviction on hold, provided he began paying at least the interest on the original 1988 loan against Fearn Chase.

Contrary to what some in the sovcit movement would have us believe, banks really don't want to foreclose. Its expensive and takes a lot of time. They almost never get the full amount they are owed, especially after you factor in the costs of foreclosure, so if the debtor approaches the bank, with a reasonable plan to pay the debt in a relatively short time, the banks usually will listen and work with the debtor.

[Normal Wisdom]

Does anyone have a link to Crawfords ombudsman decision ?

The Ombudsman has only been publishing decisions since April 2014, and I think Tom's involvement with the FOS pre-dated this.

It definitely was available as I used an excerpt from it in one of my videos about Tom. I'll see if I can find it again.

On reflection,I think I lifted the Ombudsman's comments from the Godsmark judgement.

[ArthurWankspittle]

But, I'm pretty sure that, had he approached the bank, even after they began proceedings against him, and stated his intent to sell one of the houses and pay off the balance due, they probably would have put the eviction on hold, provided he began paying at least the interest on the original 1988 loan against Fearn Chase.

If he'd been paying the interest they wouldn't even have considered eviction at that point, but Tom didn't take that approach. As you say, anyone in that position who kept paying the interest would probably get no more than an annual reminder that they hadn't paid the capital yet and would they please do something about it.

[AiusLocutius]

If he'd been paying the interest they wouldn't even have considered eviction at that point, but Tom didn't take that approach. As you say, anyone in that position who kept paying the interest would probably get no more than an annual reminder that they hadn't paid the capital yet and would they please do something about it.

I fear we are going in circles here. Toms mortgage, as far as I am aware, was an endowment mortgage. All he was paying was interest, he just did not complete the endowment policy therefore the principle was never paid. After 25 years the principle was still outstanding. Hence the property was repossessed.