I Was on the Telly Today - Horrible Fraudulent Eviction Story.

Jon Dow said

EdT said

Jon Dow said

Ed, I know all of this. I know it until I am blue in the face. Tom signed a Fixed Term Mortgage over 300 installments, 12 months per calendar year. Six years before the end, B&B changed it without telling Tom, to an Endowment. When Tom found out, he complained and B&B sent him and his wife flowers and chocolates with an apology. Tom was led to believe they had corrected it back to the fixed term. Come the end of the mortgage, guess what.

So, where is the proof of this simple fact. Not all the warrants, etc. etc. Those documents, nothing else.

If he was suddenly switched to another scheme, this will show up in his annual statements. All I am asking is that we see these in order to make up our own minds.

Do you not listen? Tom has presented ALL of the contracts and signatures to the courts in the battle that took them up to the 1st eviction attempt in July 2014. His own solicitors were at the front line yesterday, trying to get to speak to the bailiffs and ask for THEIR papers in return, along side the white van AND the black S-Class Mercedes. The bailiffs had nothing to give or say. And they have never had the correct papers and will not give them (pass them over / slide them over).

Basically, what you are saying is that "You" don't believe "Me" because this is Purple Port and there is far too much arrogance and deliberate disagreement amongst several and certain people, and that "My" word that "I" have seen the documents is not enough. Well, why don't YOU come to the next one, if there has to be one and see for yourself?

And B&B were notorious for not communicating with their customers in the last several years of their bank being in business.  Not just in this instance.

The ONE EXCUSE that this and other banks who are doing the same use is this:  "The bank reserves the right to Power of Attorney" which is posh talk for "Fuck you, customer, if we want to change your entire signed contract to suit us, at a time that suits us, and not tell you about it, then so be it".

Edited by Jon Dow

Edited by Jon Dow

Actually, I will go one better.  Why don't YOU write to Tom and ask him if you can go and view his documents in full? He has broadcast this on many videos his full address (which is a bit obvious) and that he will present HIS original contracts for people to see and read.  This is not a secret squirrel case. This is not a FMOTL case. This is an old man who had one thing and it was changed against his will and behind his back.

Email Him at:  https://www.facebook.com/tom.crawford.3139?fref=ts&ref=br_tf

Write to:
Mr T Crawford
3 Fern Close
Carlton
Nottingham
NG4 1DP

There you go. Now stop asking me for it when you obviously oppose everything I have to say and/or don't believe me. Go ask him yourself.

EdT said

Jon Dow said

EdT said

Jon Dow said

Ed, I know all of this. I know it until I am blue in the face. Tom signed a Fixed Term Mortgage over 300 installments, 12 months per calendar year. Six years before the end, B&B changed it without telling Tom, to an Endowment. When Tom found out, he complained and B&B sent him and his wife flowers and chocolates with an apology. Tom was led to believe they had corrected it back to the fixed term. Come the end of the mortgage, guess what.

So, where is the proof of this simple fact. Not all the warrants, etc. etc. Those documents, nothing else.

If he was suddenly switched to another scheme, this will show up in his annual statements. All I am asking is that we see these in order to make up our own minds.

Do you not listen? Tom has presented ALL of the contracts and signatures to the courts in the battle that took them up to the 1st eviction attempt in July 2014. His own solicitors were at the front line yesterday, trying to get to speak to the bailiffs and ask for THEIR papers in return, along side the white van AND the black S-Class Mercedes. The bailiffs had nothing to give or say. And they have never had the correct papers and will not give them (pass them over / slide them over).

Basically, what you are saying is that "You" don't believe "Me" because this is Purple Port and there is far too much arrogance and deliberate disagreement amongst several and certain people, and that "My" word that "I" have seen the documents is not enough. Well, why don't YOU come to the next one, if there has to be one and see for yourself?

And B&B were notorious for not communicating with their customers in the last several years of their bank being in business.  Not just in this instance.

The ONE EXCUSE that this and other banks who are doing the same use is this:  "The bank reserves the right to Power of Attorney" which is posh talk for "Fuck you, customer, if we want to change your entire signed contract to suit us, at a time that suits us, and not tell you about it, then so be it".

Edited by Jon Dow

Edited by Jon Dow

I get the impression you're not reading anything. It seems that this guy claims to post everything on the internet. What he posts are all the eviction papers. What you claim to have seen is what, for some reason (which smells of a giant rat to me) the guy refuses to post on-line. His mortgage statements. If they are online, a simple link will suffice.

Tom is under no obligation to post scans of the original full contracts because they contain much more personal details and answers to personal type questions. However, I am sure he will let you drive to his house and take a look.

Have a good look at the 'eviction papers'. Now answer this simple question.  Do they look real? If so, why?  If not, why?

Off you go.

Edited by Jon Dow

Anyway, folks, I have said pretty much all there is on this matter in the thread.  Those that support, thank you very much and I am certain that Tom will pass his regards to you all.

Those who oppose, ask yourself if you truly believe in the systems the way they are. Ask yourself if you are truly being opposing or is it just to try and rouse a PP argument from me? 

Either way, I and 500 other humans know the truth.

Sorry, your threads are just such good entertainment. False legalese, spouted as truth. And never any shred of evidence worth a penny.

"The ONE EXCUSE that this and other banks who are doing the same use is this:  "The bank reserves the right to Power of Attorney" which is posh talk for "Fuck you, customer, if we want to change your entire signed contract to suit us, at a time that suits us, and not tell you about it, then so be it".

And, so, presumably he signed a contract [the first agreement] with that provision in it. Sorry, folks, it means what it says. That's exactly how a PoA works. Anything they did on that basis is legally as if he had done it himself. There was no fraud there, and no misrepresentation. Presumably no gun was held to his head to agree to that.

My only thought on that subject, at this juncture, is that that MIGHT be seen as both an onerous and an unfair contract provision. But I somehow doubt it would be. It's possible, but not likely, exactly because what ever has transpired seems to have passed muster in the courts at least once and probably more than once in his long running case, and the courts have not seen any reason to unwind events, adverse to his interests, that transpired subsequent to the signing of the first agreement..

Studio36

EdT said

Sorry, your threads are just such good entertainment. False legalese, spouted as truth. And never any shred of evidence worth a penny.

Of course, you're still 'asleep'. 

See, I don;t mind putting my neck on the line for what I believe in and what facts I have read first-hand from the proper Law and Legal books. Why do you think that so many practicing solicitors in the Law Society are so pissed off because they have spent years and £££ at university learning what they thought was Law and all the time it was a bag of spanners?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with opposing arguments, just that you are only doing this for your personal entertainment and have no actual grounds to back up your claims. Whereas (a) I do have access to the original proof, and (b) I am still getting the message to whoever reads this thread that 'something is up' with the system. Don't take my word for it. Go find out for yourselves.

Studio36UK said

"The ONE EXCUSE that this and other banks who are doing the same use is this:  "The bank reserves the right to Power of Attorney" which is posh talk for "Fuck you, customer, if we want to change your entire signed contract to suit us, at a time that suits us, and not tell you about it, then so be it".

And, so, presumably he signed a contract [the first agreement] with that provision in it. Sorry, folks, it means what it says. That's exactly how a PoA works. Anything they did on that basis is legally as if he had done it himself. There was no fraud there, and no misrepresentation. Presumably no gun was held to his head to agree to that.

My only thought on that subject, at this juncture, is that that MIGHT be seen as both an onerous and an unfair contract provision. But I somehow doubt it would be. It's possible, but not likely, exactly because what ever has transpired seems to have passed muster in the courts at least once and probably more than once in his long running case, and the courts have not seen any reason to unwind events, adverse to his interests, that transpired subsequent to the signing of the first agreement..

Studio36

 

If you honestly believe that a man can take out a 25 year mortgage, signing his name and liability to a 300 installment fixed-term mortgage, only to have it altered to mean he will never pay off his home and owes £43k at the end of paying the full original amount with no defaults or late payments, AND not be told about it and have to find out for himself, then there's no hope for you. 

Sorry, but not any more. "We, The People" , remember?

Let them try. They will not succeed.

Edited by Jon Dow

Either way, whatever the "facts", its sickening how the heavy handed always prefer might is right. The banks and mortgage lenders have learnt nothing...I am sure this could have been dealt with without resorting to bailiffs. Well done you for bringing this to our attention. Even if Mr Crawford may be a little economical with the truth or believe he is in the right..or may be even have missed something, it still reveals the banks/mortgage lenders to be the complete bastards that they are.

David Purton said

Either way, whatever the "facts", its sickening how the heavy handed always prefer might is right. The banks and mortgage lenders have learnt nothing...I am sure this could have been dealt with without resorting to bailiffs. Well done you for bringing this to our attention. Even if Mr Crawford may be a little economical with the truth or believe he is in the right..or may be even have missed something, it still reveals the banks/mortgage lenders to be the complete bastards that they are.

Thanks David, you are welcome. If any of you reading this get into a similar strife in the future, we WILL come and fight your case. All 500 of us. Or more, perhaps.

EdT said

Sorry, your threads are just such good entertainment. False legalese, spouted as truth. And never any shred of evidence worth a penny.

Anyway, What do you actually do, Ed?

According to the article, and to other interviews Mr Crawford has given:

"Mr Crawford and his wife, 54, took out an endowment mortgage to buy the bungalow for £41,800 27 years ago. They expected to own the property outright when the loan came to an end last year."

When you take out an endowment mortgage, or it was certainly the case then, you made two separate agreements: one with the lender for the mortgage and one with the insurer for the endowment policy. The arrangements are distinct and the borrower could change either arrangement if they wish.

The arrangement with the lender was an interest only loan, no capital would be paid off. The proceeds of the endowment were made available to the lender at the end of the policy term. The borrower would be required to make up any shortfall, or would keep what remains of the endowment after the full sum of the loan has been paid.

So Mr Crawford has been paying his interest every month. Assuming he has also been paying the insurer, it is for them to pay the full amount of the loan. Whatever happens, the bank is entitled to its £41,8000. His argument should be with the insurer, not the bank.

Jon Dow said

EdT said

Sorry, your threads are just such good entertainment. False legalese, spouted as truth. And never any shred of evidence worth a penny.

Anyway, What do you actually do, Ed?

OU course on Law at the moment. It's why I find you so amusing. :)

EdT said

Jon Dow said

EdT said

Sorry, your threads are just such good entertainment. False legalese, spouted as truth. And never any shred of evidence worth a penny.

Anyway, What do you actually do, Ed?

OU course on Law at the moment. It's why I find you so amusing. :)

AHA!  I thought so!  I was going to put money on you being a solicitor of corrupt law. And there it is.

Thanks :)

Jon Dow said

If you honestly believe that a man can take out a 25 year mortgage, signing his name and liability to a 300 installment fixed-term mortgage, only to have it altered to mean he will never pay off his home and owes £43k at the end of paying the full original amount with no defaults or late payments, AND not be told about it and have to find out for himself, then there's no hope for you. 

Yes, I do believe it can and does happen.

In a past life I was trained and worked as a fire investigator [civil and criminal]. I've seen insurers doing much the same thing and refusing to pay off on a casualty loss because the policy holder wasn't paying attention when they took out the policy. I can certainly have sympathy for the man's present plight without having much at all for how it came to be.

Studio36

If you have a mortgage then the lender has to send you a statement every year detailing, how much interest you have been charged, how much you have paid in the year and how much you still owe. If his story is true them he can easily prove his case by showing his annual statement otherwise he sounds like another one of those people who took out an endowment mortgage then cancelled his insurance policy to save money and is now crying because his foolishness has bit him on the butt.  

Jon Dow said

EdT said

Jon Dow said

EdT said

Sorry, your threads are just such good entertainment. False legalese, spouted as truth. And never any shred of evidence worth a penny.

Anyway, What do you actually do, Ed?

OU course on Law at the moment. It's why I find you so amusing. :)

AHA!  I thought so!  I was going to put money on you being a solicitor of corrupt law. And there it is.

Thanks :)

ROTFLMAO

Studio36