The Crawfords post eviction liabilities

[Bones]

There's a GOODF thread that ties White Rabbit to the decision to stop payments.

Might explain why White Rabbit is off hiding deep in his hole

The Decision to Stop Payments in September 2013

45. In September 2013 the Crawfords stopped making payments to Bradford & Bingley. This was while the possession order on his home was suspended on condition that he made the current monthly payments. That decision was taken, according to Mr Crawford, because by then they had reached the end of the twenty-five year mortgage term and felt that they had no continuing liability to make any further payments.

48. Thus in September 2013 the Crawfords were still obliged to make monthly payments even though twenty-five years had expired. The decision to cease making those payments was disastrous. It immediately put the Crawfords in breach of the terms of the suspension of the possession order. It immediately gave Bradford & Bingley the right to enforce the possession order.

[Bones]

The Deputy District Judge made the following order:-

1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Gedling, Nottinghamshire, NG4 1DN on or before 17 October 2012.

2. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85 being the amount outstanding under the mortgage which is not to be enforced so long as the possession order remains suspended.

So even back in 2012, the Possession Order gave possession to B&B (suspended) and quite clearly stated the amount outstanding and that's the approx. amount he quoted on his initial post on GOODF. What I've never been clear about was who advised him to stop paying after the end of the 25 year period, I've looked through GOODF thread and can't see it on there, or was it just something he decided himself?

It was the 2012 Possession Order that Tom was trying to appeal and that ultimately gave B&B possession

49. I deal with this aspect of the case here although it is not relevant to the appeal. This is an appeal against the making of the suspended possession order on 19th September 2012. What led to the lifting of that suspension is not relevant to the making of the original order. However I deal with this point to make it clear that it has not been overlooked and so that anyone reading this judgment can understand, as I have been keen to, how the Crawfords have ended up where they are.

[wanglepin]

My above two posts, whilst containing nothing new or that we didn't already know, serve to show how Tom and Co are willing to mislead people, when they know what they are telling people is not true. Shame on you Tom, Shame on you Ceylon, Shame on you Mr Ebert, Shame on you Michael O'Deria and shame on you Michael O'Bernica - otherwise known as the Crawford Legal advisors. You have all shown, how willing you are to hide the truth from and intentionally mislead people

You left out that other 19 faced idiot Brian Gerrish, who was sat next to Guy taylor while they were both reading it (the case file that they never had ) to camera. with Gerrish throwing in at the end " no warrants issued", when it was there for everyone to see this was a blatant lie by Gerrish and Taylor.
Brian Gerrish always seems to get off light when it comes to these freeman failures, but he is one of the biggest shit stirrers assisting the freeman goofer movements. Not to mention his cozy relationship with his old navy pal Roger Hayes.

[NG3]

Brian Gerrish always seems to get off light when it comes to these freeman failures, but he is one of the biggest shit stirrers assisting the freeman goofer movements. Not to mention his cozy relationship with his old navy pal Roger Hayes.

Notice Hayes and a few other "early adopters", the ones that got the fattest brown envelopes, have gone into hiatus?

This is common, this is why they get off lightly.

They're disciples themselves, but far enough up the food chain to understand it will always end up this way, and that it's better to be out of the picture when the brown smelly stuff hits the fan and the police are everywhere.

A little bit further down the road they pop up somewhere else, in some new capacity, and the circus begins again, stigma free.

[YiamCross]

I wonder why Tom is posting this stuff:


Tom Crawford
59 mins
Boddenham Manor theft from Guy Taylor 21 Aug 2014 Police Raid - a Freedom of Information request...
Dear West Mercia Police, The following press release was available on 21st Aug 2014 on this urlhttp://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/new... "Police End Illegal Occupation of Bodenham Manor, Herefordshire West Mercia Police officers have entered the site of Bodenham Manor in Herefordshire this morning…
WHATDOTHEYKNOW.COM
Like Comment Share

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... from_guy_t

Which is all a bit in the past, has nothing to do with the Crawford's case and since Guy Taylor seems to have withdrawn from the scene due to personal commitments (not so much spare time what with all his community service and having to pay a big old fine) It kind of makes you question whether Tom actually has lost it.

[Skeleton]

I wonder why Tom is posting this stuff:


Tom Crawford
59 mins
Boddenham Manor theft from Guy Taylor 21 Aug 2014 Police Raid - a Freedom of Information request...
Dear West Mercia Police, The following press release was available on 21st Aug 2014 on this urlhttp://www.westmercia.police.uk/news/new... "Police End Illegal Occupation of Bodenham Manor, Herefordshire West Mercia Police officers have entered the site of Bodenham" Manor in Herefordshire this morning…
WHATDOTHEYKNOW.COM
Like Comment Share

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/ ... from_guy_t

Which is all a bit in the past, has nothing to do with the Crawford's case and since Guy Taylor seems to have withdrawn from the scene due to personal commitments (not so much spare time what with all his community service and having to pay a big old fine) It kind of makes you question whether Tom actually has lost it.

What else can he post, his latest win spectacular failure in court? Even Tom can only tell his "closed shop" audience that the Police are scumbags, the Courts are corrupt and his house was stolen off him on so many occasions before his eager listeners bugger off and find another lie to listen to.

Bottom line, he has nothing to post but has to be seen to post something.

[Colin123]

Should i be worried ? I shared this from ETFOTB, to another page, response below


Claire Booker
13 hrs · Edited
Would you say someone that copy and pastes, screenshots from a closed group to a public group should be held to account if the content is used in a malicious way to cause upset, anxiety and distress and make complete lies up?

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2010/08 ... -facebook/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicio ... s_Act_1988

http://m.wikihow.com/Sue-for-Defamation

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/proce ... l/prot_def

http://www.reputationhawk.com/onlinedefamation.html



And the message she sent me

Hey Colin, there's something about this photo that bothers me. Would you please take it down? My post was placed in a closed group not a public group. Would you please cease and desist from sceen shotting and or copying and pasting contents I write in a closed group. I am not a member of the group you have posted it in and I do not wish for it to be discussed in a public group.

If you do not remove the content I will seek lawful remedy away from Facebook as you are infringing my rights

Regards
Claire Booker
Answers on a post card please
Colin ********
Chat conversation end


Do i await my day in court ?

[NG3]

Do i await my day in court ?

As long as you don't mind waiting forever

[FatGambit]

There is no such thing as 'privacy' on the internet, wonder which part of 'don't post it if you don't want others to see it' they don't understand?..

[Bungle]

Here's the report from the Nottingham Post.

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-Crawf ... story.html

The court made a civil restraint order (i.e. vexatious litigant) so he won't be able to make any more useless applications to the court. That can only be in his favour, because it'll stop any further erosion of the proceeds of sale in legal costs.

His name does not yet appear on the official register. When it does, he will have something more in common with his good mates Russell and Jacqueline Mc Garry. Their Extended Civil Restrain Order lasts until 2016.


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/extended-ci ... s-in-force

[noblepa]

The Deputy District Judge made the following order:-

1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Gedling, Nottinghamshire, NG4 1DN on or before 17 October 2012.

2. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85 being the amount outstanding under the mortgage which is not to be enforced so long as the possession order remains suspended.

So even back in 2012, the Possession Order gave possession to B&B (suspended) and quite clearly stated the amount outstanding and that's the approx. amount he quoted on his initial post on GOODF. What I've never been clear about was who advised him to stop paying after the end of the 25 year period, I've looked through GOODF thread and can't see it on there, or was it just something he decided himself?

How can the bank be given possesion of the house AND £45,763.85? It seems to me that they were entitled to one OR the other but not both. If Tom had somehow come up with the money back then, he would be entitled to the house, free and clear, would he not?

Secondly, in the US, especially back in the early eighties, when interest rates were ridiculously high, banks sometimes wrote interest-only loans. I briefly had a negative amortization loan, in which the payment was LESS the the monthly interest. This made my loan balance increase, rather than decrease. Needless to say, I got out of that loan as quickly as I could.

Which brings me to my second question. In all of this, no one has suggested that Tom could have "refinanced" the house, perhaps with a normal repayment mortgage, when the B & B loan period expired. Is there a reason he couldn't have done that, perhaps even before the end of the B & B term? That's what I did to get out from under that negative amortization loan. When the interest rates came down, I simply went to another bank and applied for a conventional mortgage.

[NYGman]

How can the bank be given possesion of the house AND £45,763.85? It seems to me that they were entitled to one OR the other but not both. If Tom had somehow come up with the money back then, he would be entitled to the house, free and clear, would he not?

Secondly, in the US, especially back in the early eighties, when interest rates were ridiculously high, banks sometimes wrote interest-only loans. I briefly had a negative amortization loan, in which the payment was LESS the the monthly interest. This made my loan balance increase, rather than decrease. Needless to say, I got out of that loan as quickly as I could.

Which brings me to my second question. In all of this, no one has suggested that Tom could have "refinanced" the house, perhaps with a normal repayment mortgage, when the B & B loan period expired. Is there a reason he couldn't have done that, perhaps even before the end of the B & B term? That's what I did to get out from under that negative amortization loan. When the interest rates came down, I simply went to another bank and applied for a conventional mortgage.

Tom knew he owed the money, but I think that he thought magic Freeman Woo and being a fly in the ointment, would convince B&B to drop the balance, as some banks do over unpaid credit card bills. He could have refinanced with another lender, he may have been able to get a reverse mortgage, and stayed in the house. He had many legal options to remain, but all involved him giving up something (45k or the house) and he felt he didn't have to. I think one of his first posts asked about paying off the balance with a promissory note. That should tell you everything you need to know about him. He wanted something for nothing, and felt the bank owed it to him. He had many chances to fix this in the 90's but refused. Now he is homeless of his own making.

[NG3]

The Deputy District Judge made the following order:-

1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Gedling, Nottinghamshire, NG4 1DN on or before 17 October 2012.

2. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85 being the amount outstanding under the mortgage which is not to be enforced so long as the possession order remains suspended.

So even back in 2012, the Possession Order gave possession to B&B (suspended) and quite clearly stated the amount outstanding and that's the approx. amount he quoted on his initial post on GOODF. What I've never been clear about was who advised him to stop paying after the end of the 25 year period, I've looked through GOODF thread and can't see it on there, or was it just something he decided himself?

How can the bank be given possesion of the house AND £45,763.85? It seems to me that they were entitled to one OR the other but not both. If Tom had somehow come up with the money back then, he would be entitled to the house, free and clear, would he not?

He's making essentially two orders, one saying that the bank can take the house, but that's suspended unless Tom fails to comply with the second order and doesn't pay his mortgage.

They do it like that so that you don't need a second case when the defendant blows his last chance, and yes, he could have applied for a second mortgage, a loan, or renegotiated payment terms, he had plenty of options to keep the house but choose the woo instead.

[AndyPandy]

The Deputy District Judge made the following order:-

1. The defendant give the claimant possession of 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Gedling, Nottinghamshire, NG4 1DN on or before 17 October 2012.

2. The defendant pay the claimant £45,763.85 being the amount outstanding under the mortgage which is not to be enforced so long as the possession order remains suspended.

So even back in 2012, the Possession Order gave possession to B&B (suspended) and quite clearly stated the amount outstanding and that's the approx. amount he quoted on his initial post on GOODF. What I've never been clear about was who advised him to stop paying after the end of the 25 year period, I've looked through GOODF thread and can't see it on there, or was it just something he decided himself?

How can the bank be given possesion of the house AND £45,763.85? It seems to me that they were entitled to one OR the other but not both. If Tom had somehow come up with the money back then, he would be entitled to the house, free and clear, would he not?

Secondly, in the US, especially back in the early eighties, when interest rates were ridiculously high, banks sometimes wrote interest-only loans. I briefly had a negative amortization loan, in which the payment was LESS the the monthly interest. This made my loan balance increase, rather than decrease. Needless to say, I got out of that loan as quickly as I could.

Which brings me to my second question. In all of this, no one has suggested that Tom could have "refinanced" the house, perhaps with a normal repayment mortgage, when the B & B loan period expired. Is there a reason he couldn't have done that, perhaps even before the end of the B & B term? That's what I did to get out from under that negative amortization loan. When the interest rates came down, I simply went to another bank and applied for a conventional mortgage.

The £45k was the original capital amount lent to purchase the property, for the 25 years the Crawfords had only been repaying the interest, that was the amount outstanding they still owed at year 23. The mortgage Company were in 2012, granted a Possession Order (suspended) due to the mortgage being in arrears.

As to refinancing, Tom is 62 /63 and retired, they couldn't afford the interest only mortgage repayments (this wasn't the first time they're fallen into arrears), so they wouldn't have been able to afford interest plus capital and I doubt anyone would have granted them a mortgage given age, work status and previous poor repayment record.

[littleFred]

It seems to me that they were entitled to one OR the other but not both.

You didn't quote the third paragraph, which says:

3. This order is not to be enforced so long as the defendant pays the current instalments under the mortgage the first instalment being paid on or before 30th September 2012.

So the judge didn't order Tom to hand over either the house OR £45k for as long as he paid the current instalments.

[YiamCross]

How can the bank be given possesion of the house AND £45,763.85? It seems to me that they were entitled to one OR the other but not both. If Tom had somehow come up with the money back then, he would be entitled to the house, free and clear, would he not?

The order is for possession of the property which would be sold off to repay the amount outstanding. If there's any change left over, it goes to the Crawfords. Trouble is they also get costs added on to the bill which in the Crawford's case are probably higher than the original amount outstanding on the house. The bank are supposed to get market value for the house but that's a hard one to prove if the property is offered onthe open market, ie at an auction. Add to that the fact that the property was severly devalued by the flood of abusive phone calls and emails to the agent and it's hard to think of a way to ensure the Crawfords cold have come out of the situation any worse off.

Which brings me to my second question. In all of this, no one has suggested that Tom could have "refinanced" the house, perhaps with a normal repayment mortgage, when the B & B loan period expired. Is there a reason he couldn't have done that, perhaps even before the end of the B & B term? That's what I did to get out from under that negative amortization loan. When the interest rates came down, I simply went to another bank and applied for a conventional mortgage.

It's actually worse than that. As I understand it the bank had agreed for the Crawfords to stay on in the house so long as they paid the interest. They didn't need to go traipsing around trying to refinance it, all they needed to do was carry on paying the interest. Trouble is they decided they'd paid enough and didn't have any obligation to carry on paying once the mortgage had reached term. Who knows where they got that idea from.

[Jeffrey]

In all of this, no one has suggested that Tom could have "refinanced" the house, perhaps with a normal repayment mortgage

Way back in the thread I asked why not refinance and go with a reverse mortgage on the equity on the house. Eliminate the 300 pound monthly payment, banks pays you a little bit each month.

[LaVidaRoja]

IIRC, in order to get a reverse mortgage, you need to have EQUITY in the property. Given what had been paid on the principal ($0), a reverse mortgage would first have been applied to the original amount owed. IF there was a considerable amount of value in excess of that, I believe that a reverse mortgage might have been able to supply monies up to 60% of the total value. If total value was $100,000, and principal outstanding was $45,000, the most they might have qualified for would be about $15,000. Pay that out over ten or twenty years, and it's not much.

[NYGman]

IIRC, in order to get a reverse mortgage, you need to have EQUITY in the property. Given what had been paid on the principal ($0), a reverse mortgage would first have been applied to the original amount owed. IF there was a considerable amount of value in excess of that, I believe that a reverse mortgage might have been able to supply monies up to 60% of the total value. If total value was $100,000, and principal outstanding was $45,000, the most they might have qualified for would be about $15,000. Pay that out over ten or twenty years, and it's not much.

But he gets to stay in the house and have some monthly cash to pay the bills. Would be in a better position than loosing all his equity, and facing additional costs, due to needless court actions, and reduced sale price.

[fat frank]

What you got to remember is that they had 3 kids and knew since 99 there was no way to pay off the mortgage

Lets look at there kids

Nicola, not much is known about her

Amanda, vile women and prob the main reason so many have turned against the crawfords

Craig, the (claims to be) millionaire son, who runs loads of businesses from 3 fern chase, he also claims to give away 20k in prizes when he runs his competitions, claims to make companys millions away but doesn't know what a mortgage is and lives in a rented room in a rented flat

now they owe 45 k, 45 k between 5 of them from 99 would of been £11.50 each a week, to save castle Crawford