UK - Tom Crawford Calls For Help

[JonnyL]

Thinking about the judgment I think the judge was very clear and concise but in retrospect it would have been better if he had added another paragraph to the effect of:

Mr Crawford all your legal challenges have failed and you will now be removed from your home with reasonable force, likely in the next few weeks but it could be any time in the next few months. I suggest you pack your bags and seek advice about rehousing from Shelter as every time you make a legal challenge or resist an eviction further costs are added to the mortgage which will be deducted from the proceeds of sale of your house.

I think this will come once the next eviction appointment is made. Tom & Co will make an application to throw it out it on the basis that it's unlawful, fraud, yadda, yadda, yadda. At that point Tom will get the 'Come to Jesus' speech where the Judge explains in words of one syllable or less that he's lost and he's about to be kicked out.

Might it not come as a result of the "Request review and revise" document that Tom has apparently already sent to the Court? I cannot wait to hear the response - assuming we do.

Maybe the court will simply write 'Return to sender, no contact no contract' written on the application and return it to Tom.

[Burnaby49]

I stand by my previous comments. That is how I believe Quatloos is intended to work. Perhaps a mod could verify.

Verified. I consider discussions without links to the source material to be worthless, just unsubstantiated chatter. A principal purpose of Quatloos is to debunk scams like this and you can't debunk things like GOODF by pretending they don't exist. Why would anyone trust or agree with our comments if we don't back up our criticism by providing the source material for the reader to compare our comments against? As you can see from my frequent links to my Media Fire account and my obsession with source documents I consider this to be an essential part of my postings.

In any case if we discussed GOODF without linking to it anyone interested in checking it out could very easily find it without our help.

If anyone is concerned that commenting in Quatloos is sending poor gullible lambs to the slaughter the solution is in your hands. Don't participate in the discussion. Or, as a more proactive step, start your own websites where links and source material are banned. Here they are welcomed.

[Hercule Parrot]

Latest video re: crowdfunding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... kfrHrJqtCA

I don't believe it, they've flipped 180 degrees again....

We had the first truth, when TC had "WON A FAMOUS VICTORY". The truth then suddenly changed to TC was "OUTRAGEOUSLY CHEATED OF JUSTICE".

I go out for a few hours to enjoy the sunshine, and apparently we're back to TC has "WON A FAMOUS VICTORY".

What a bunch of utter clowns.

[Normal Wisdom]

Latest video re: crowdfunding

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... kfrHrJqtCA

I don't believe it, they've flipped 180 degrees again....

We had the first truth, when TC had "WON A FAMOUS VICTORY". The truth then suddenly changed to TC was "OUTRAGEOUSLY CHEATED OF JUSTICE".

I go out for a few hours to enjoy the sunshine, and apparently we're back to TC has "WON A FAMOUS VICTORY".

What a bunch of utter clowns.

As I said, the "truth" depends on which of the legal clowns Tom spoke to last.

[slowsmile]

Might it not come as a result of the "Request review and revise" document that Tom has apparently already sent to the Court? I cannot wait to hear the response - assuming we do.

Is that an actual legal process or is it something that only exists in the law according to Ebert?

[Normal Wisdom]

Might it not come as a result of the "Request review and revise" document that Tom has apparently already sent to the Court? I cannot wait to hear the response - assuming we do.

Is that an actual legal process or is it something that only exists in the law according to Ebert?

The latter I think although I did see a comment that perhaps it exists in the Indian legal process.

[slowsmile]

I used to live a few miles from Nottingham. When I worked in a pub there and someone ordered a half of any kind of beer I'd always ask "is that in a lady's' glass?" because this was the brewery's rules, and was common practice in all pubs in the East Midlands.

So I can tell you with some authority that Guy Taylor is drinking his lager from a "lady's' glass".

Don't think so these days - part of the marketing of some of the more expensive lagers includes serving them in there own special glass.

[Silly Ebert]

.
I would say that the warrant that has just has the suspension lifted is in fact the third warrant,
the one from July was withdrawn by B&B last September and new one issued Dec 14 .

It's important to distinguish between warrants and eviction appointments. My understanding is that the warrant, once issued, lasts 12 months and can be repeatedly renewed (automatically). Once the warrant is issued the bailiffs gives notice and then can arrange numerous eviction appointments with the claimant to actually execute the original warrant.

So when you mention a warrant in Dec 2014 are you talking about a fresh warrant or a fresh eviction attempt after the initial failed eviction(s).

It's a minor point but if B&B are operating under the original warrant dated 10 June 2014 they only have a week or so to go until that runs out. I suspect they are either biding their time, potentially waiting for the renewal to go through on PCOL or are going to attempt a no notice eviction before 10 June 2015.

You are correct that the warrant has 12 months life span but the warrant for the first eviction 23/7/2013 was withdrawn in Sep 2014 whilst B&B supplied further evidence. They then re applied for a fresh warrant which they got in Dec 2014 ( giving this warrant 7 months to expire) They could just apply to re-issue if this one expired ( I don't believe it will take that long to execute) .
This warrant is NOW LIVE and can and will be executed soon, I don't believe they will pass it up to High Court.

[slowsmile]

Might it not come as a result of the "Request review and revise" document that Tom has apparently already sent to the Court? I cannot wait to hear the response - assuming we do.

Is that an actual legal process or is it something that only exists in the law according to Ebert?

The latter I think although I did see a comment that perhaps it exists in the Indian legal process.

Right - so the Crawfords had to be eating a takeaway curry when they sent it.

[tm169]

You are correct that the warrant has 12 months life span but the warrant for the first eviction 23/7/2013 was withdrawn in Sep 2014 whilst B&B supplied further evidence. They then re applied for a fresh warrant which they got in Dec 2014 ( giving this warrant 7 months to expire) They could just apply to re-issue if this one expired ( I don't believe it will take that long to execute) .
This warrant is NOW LIVE and can and will be executed soon, I don't believe they will pass it up to High Court.

Thanks that's useful. The timeline has been slightly (intentionally) obscured. The key message is there is a live warrant and there are no further legal steps B&B need to take. Aside from requesting a new bailiff appointment which in my experiences takes 4 weeks at least.

[Hercule Parrot]

Here is my own "forensic" analysis of the case:

Tom Crawford bought the house at 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham, in 1988 with a loan from Bradford and Bingley. This was not an arcane and mysterious procedure; £41,800 of real money was given to the sellers of the house. Tom now owes it to the bank....

I think that's an exceptionally full and concise summary. Well done.

[tm169]

Might it not come as a result of the "Request review and revise" document that Tom has apparently already sent to the Court? I cannot wait to hear the response - assuming we do.

I bet 155 re that the Court will send it back with the standard letter saying:

"It's looks like you are trying to make an application. Please fill out form N244 and enclose a cheque for the relevant Court fee"

If they do that the listing office might treat it as an application to suspend the warrant as the warrant is still live and will indeed list it for 30mins in front of a DDJ. Might work as a delaying tactic.

[Normal Wisdom]

I'm still half expecting to hear that there is to be a new appeal or even an appeal against the refusal of leave to appeal or something, anything that will spin this out for a further 6 to 12 months. Am I just being pessimistic?

[Silly Ebert]

You are correct that the warrant has 12 months life span but the warrant for the first eviction 23/7/2013 was withdrawn in Sep 2014 whilst B&B supplied further evidence. They then re applied for a fresh warrant which they got in Dec 2014 ( giving this warrant 7 months to expire) They could just apply to re-issue if this one expired ( I don't believe it will take that long to execute) .
This warrant is NOW LIVE and can and will be executed soon, I don't believe they will pass it up to High Court.

Thanks that's useful. The timeline has been slightly (intentionally) obscured. The key message is there is a live warrant and there are no further legal steps B&B need to take. Aside from requesting a new bailiff appointment which in my experiences takes 4 weeks at least.

B&B don't even have to request a bailiff appointment the warrant would have been suspended to "lie in office" pending outcome of hearing. The warrant then goes back to the bailiff for a new date.

[Burnaby49]

I used to live a few miles from Nottingham. When I worked in a pub there and someone ordered a half of any kind of beer I'd always ask "is that in a lady's' glass?" because this was the brewery's rules, and was common practice in all pubs in the East Midlands.

So I can tell you with some authority that Guy Taylor is drinking his lager from a "lady's' glass".

Don't think so these days - part of the marketing of some of the more expensive lagers includes serving them in there own special glass.

I was in a pub in a small village where I noticed an elderly woman order two half pints rather than a pint. Since two halfs cost more than a pint I asked her why she did it. She said it wasn't ladylike to drink pints.

[midjit-gems]

Well the word was always the warrant they were using was actually out of date the first time they tried to use it, and then again it was nearly 2 years out of date when they tried in January.

This was the official line response was peddling. If that's the case either the prince doesn't know what's what or another lie, or both.

I'm pretty sure on numerous occasions they've said there is no warrant as they've asked to see the possession order but one doesn't exist. So who's bs'ING who here?

[Silly Ebert]

Might it not come as a result of the "Request review and revise" document that Tom has apparently already sent to the Court? I cannot wait to hear the response - assuming we do.

I bet 155 re that the Court will send it back with the standard letter saying:

"It's looks like you are trying to make an application. Please fill out form N244 and enclose a cheque for the relevant Court fee"

If they do that the listing office might treat it as an application to suspend the warrant as the warrant is still live and will indeed list it for 30mins in front of a DDJ. Might work as a delaying tactic.

Well if they send it back asking TC to complete a n244 for a stay hearing he won't be able to do this because in his world there is no warrant to suspend???

[vampireLOREN]

Here is my own "forensic" analysis of the case:

Tom Crawford bought the house at 3 Fearn Chase, Carlton, Nottingham, in 1988 with a loan from Bradford and Bingley. This was not an arcane and mysterious procedure; £41,800 of real money was given to the sellers of the house. Tom now owes it to the bank....

I think that's an exceptionally full and concise summary. Well done.

That is all there ever was to the whole saga.

[fat frank]

because they are always trying to BS people, as they need to keep up the pretence that everything is fake and its all private courts, where they just print off warrants,

[wanglepin]

because they are always trying to BS people, as they need to keep up the pretence that everything is fake and its all private courts, where they just print off warrants,

Indeed, both these videos appear to be Taylor and Ebert trying desperately to justify themselves to Tom Crawford. They don`t give a damn what anyone else thinks or believes. It is simply the actions of someone being caught out lying and desperately attempting to put fantasy before cold hard facts. They believe they can get away with pulling the wool over Tom Crawford’s blinkered eyes simply because he is a thicko.