freeman of the land + cancer + 500 'protesters' = massive farce

dowie

dowie

dowie

Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
59,118
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...hanks-to-500-strangers-who-stop-eviction.html

Hundreds of strangers form blockade to help man claim eviction victory over bailiffs
Supporters of Tom Crawford turn out in force and lead to bailiffs abandoning plans to turf him out of home in Carlton, Nottinghamshire, following YouTube video
Click to expand...

this shouldn't be rocket science, when you take out a loan you pay interest, if all you've paid is interest then the entire amount of that loan is still repayable at the end - simple enough really

so when you have an endowment policy and there is going to be a shortfall which means you won't be fully covered for the loan amount it is a good idea to look at making repayments ASAP rather than continuing to just repay the interest... it really isn't a good idea to ignore it for over a decade then turn around at the end and decide that because you've paid lots of interest then that is enough, the lender has had 'enough' money from you and well you've got cancer now (which is indeed unfortunate) and you're interested in all this freeman of the land stuff + have a bunch of internet peeps who are also into that stuff and who can come round and stand up to the bailiffs...

all this farce is going to be billed to him in the end, they probably will get to evict him eventually, sell the property and recover the loan amount + legal costs and then add on the bailiff costs etc... all this 'protesting' is, in the end, going to end up costing this guy thousands more
 
Tefal said:
I doubt anything he's said is strictly true tbh
Click to expand...

Yeah he sounds a bit (willingly) naive as to financial details but whether the bank really made him aware of the nature of the changes to the interest only loan or not would have a big impact on the nature of the issue.
 
matdom said:
if you read it, its the banks fault, now if they lost the documents then they should not have been aloud to chase the guy.
Click to expand...

Its less black and white than that, he thinks he shouldn't pay any more because he has already paid a large sum (quite a bit more than the building's original value) and while I sympathise if the way he financed it means he still contractually owes more money then he either needs to fulfil his obligations or get a judgement as to if the terms are fair from the relevant regulating body.
 
it isn't the bank's fault, it is just some guy, who happens to have cancer, who has been in denial about the shortfall in his endowment policy, has chosen to ignore it till now and now that the mortgage has come to an end and the principle needs to be paid off he's seemingly bought into the freeman of the land nonsense and decided he's paid plenty of money to the bank over the years so shouldn't have to pay off the loan

 
^^ There is uncertainty in the article if the bank properly handled the loan or not so unless you have other information (I'm not gonna sit through a video that is most likely babbling on about freeman crap so apology if its covered in that) it isn't as simple as that.
 
dowie said:
it isn't the bank's fault, it is just some guy, who happens to have cancer, who has been in denial about the shortfall in his endowment policy, has chosen to ignore it till now and now that the mortgage has come to an end and the principle needs to be paid off he's seemingly bought into the freeman of the land nonsense and decided he's paid plenty of money to the bank over the years so shouldn't have to pay off the loan

Click to expand...

We moved in to this house in 1988 and we have paid three times the value of the house

But he claims the bank told him 2007 that he would never pay off his mortgage because there was no record of him taking out the endowment mortgage.
 
Rroff said:
Its less black and white than that, he thinks he shouldn't pay any more because he has already paid a large sum (quite a bit more than the building's original value) and while I sympathise if the way he financed it means he still contractually owes more money then he either needs to fulfil his obligations or get a judgement as to if the terms are fair from the relevant regulating body.
Click to expand...

anyone with a mortgage will pay back the loan several times over thanks to interest, if you're not paying off the principle too or you don't have other investments to use to pay off the principle then you're a bit screwed when it comes to an end

people with endowments were warned about potential shortfalls over a decade ago, he could have started paying off the principle back then - instead he's carried on just making interest payments. If he was mis-sold an endowment policy he could pursue that too.... instead he's ignored the situation and now has decided to buy into a bunch of pseudo legal nonsense
 
matdom said:
We moved in to this house in 1988 and we have paid three times the value of the house

But he claims the bank told him 2007 that he would never pay off his mortgage because there was no record of him taking out the endowment mortgage.
Click to expand...

he'll never pay off the mortgage with the approach he took because he only ever paid interest, the original loan amount hasn't been touched at all and now it is due to be paid
 
dowie said:
anyone with a mortgage will pay back the loan several times over thanks to interest, if you're not paying off the principle too or you don't have other investments to use to pay off the principle then you're a bit screwed when it comes to an end

people with endowments were warned about potential shortfalls over a decade ago, he could have started paying off the principle back then - instead he's carried on just making interest payments. If he was mis-sold an endowment policy he could pursue that too.... instead he's ignored the situation and now has decided to buy into a bunch of pseudo legal nonsense
Click to expand...

bank said there was no record, if there is no record then he does not own anything, they need to prove it with a signature which I guess n=no one has asked for the document.
 
Just watched his video..... He is an absolute faker... Can tell from listening to the guy speak for a few mins. 100% Fraud, blaming all his money woes on 'dem stupid evil banks cocking stuff up' and blaming his cancer on 'failings of the NHS'
and 'idiot experts'

This guy is what is wrong with society... And the sad thing is he has spun the simple minded anti-establishment morons in to joining his side... What a shame.
 
I don't think this is reported accurately enough to actually work out the facts.

We have probably put £125,000 towards this place or something like that, I have never worked it out exactly, but why do they want more?
Click to expand...

Well, at 25 years or so at £300 - £400 a month that might be what he paid. But it isn't clear if he 'put it to the house' or just paid interest or also paid towards an endowment.

There is no money left
Click to expand...

His wife, Sue, is still working. She works in market research.

But he claims the bank told him 2007 that he would never pay off his mortgage because there was no record of him taking out the endowment mortgage.
Click to expand...

This is important. He may have either received confirmation that his endowment was short of the mortgage amount (would have been sent from the endowment provider), or simply that his mortgage was an interest only mortgage and that he should check that he had an adequate repayment plan in place (would have been sent from the lender).

He then says a bank manager assured him this was incorrect and even sent his wife champagne to apologise for the blunder.
Click to expand...

The bank manager could only reassure him this was incorrect if the bank was also the provider of the endowment or if the mortgage was repayment.

I think (may not be correct though) that Standard Life provided endowments for B&B mortgages back then.

But he was soon embroiled in a court battle over the mortgage, which he says the bank converted into an interest only loan without his knowledge.
Click to expand...

If it was then he would have noticed a significant fall in the monthly repayment.

What does soon mean? Soon after 2007?

The entire report is completing lacking in any substance. The mind boggles at the possible events. A completely lost endowment policy? A borrower who cashed in his endowment and can't remember? A complete screw up at the bank combined with complete lack of understanding by the borrower?

Who knows. It appears to be coming down to a shouting match.
 
matdom said:
bank said there was no record, if there is no record then he does not own anything, they need to prove it with a signature which I guess n=no one has asked for the document.
Click to expand...

where does the bank say that... you're referring to his ramblings, he also claims to have paid off the loan several times, what he actually means is he's paid the interest...
 
Sounds like Mortgages need to change :p

All the details aside, it's absurd to have paid off the original value of the house multiple times without actually paying off the mortgage.

May's well live in a bin, bet I'll get charged for that too.
 
Martini1991 said:
Sounds like Mortgages need to change :p

All the details aside, it's absurd to have paid off the original value of the house multiple times without actually paying off the mortgage.

May's well live in a bin, bet I'll get charged for that too.
Click to expand...

What nonsense. Do the maths and borrow any sum over 20, 25 or 30 years and see what interest you will need to pay.

Plus, inflation reduces the value of the debt over time. Plus, the house has gained value over time too - purchase price £41,800, but it wasn't the Daily Mail reporting so we don't know what it is worth today. Reckon it is worth more?
 
Last edited:
Whys it nonesense for it to sound absurd to have paid off the original value of the house multiple times without paying off the mortgage? If you literally just see it as that, it sounds utterly ridiculous.

I don't need to do the math, I think the reality is silly.

I just don't have the mentality to accept paying out inordinate sums of money for the necessity of a roof above my head, and the rest of the lark.
 
Last edited:
Martini1991 said:
Whys it nonesense for it to sound absurd to have paid off the original value of the house multiple times without paying off the mortgage? If you literally just see it as that, it sounds utterly ridiculous.

I don't need to do the math, I think the reality is silly.

I just don't have the mentality to accept paying out inordinate sums of money for the necessity of a house above my head, and the rest of the lark.
Click to expand...

so don't take out a loan then...

I don't see what is silly really, interest over a couple of decades adds up a bit - no one is forcing anyone to take out a mortgage. If you chose to just pay the interest then that loan isn't going to disappear....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom