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

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

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
 
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

 
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.

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
 
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.

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
 
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.

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...
 
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.

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....
 
No one's forcing you to take out a mortgage? What's the alternative? Rent forever? Wait till my Mam snuffs it and take her house (That she's paid off)?

I'd rather cease to exist than to share your viewpoint Dowie. World's crap enough without the masses willingly becoming cogs in the machine.

its reality though, yes if the idea of paying interest seems unfair to you then perhaps you should rent/live with your mum/go live in a yurt in a field somewhere/or accumulate sufficient cash that you don't need a mortgage to buy a property

no one is forced to lend to you either - tis your call, surprisingly enough a lender wants a return on the money they lend out
 
I don't have the answers, I just don't agree with the system as it is.

Although I'm not suggesting only paying back 40K, I'd say 70K total is on the high side of acceptable to me.

over what time period? Who do you expect to make all these potentially uber low interest loans?
 
what a surprise the freeman of the land nonsense didn't work out for him:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tgage-payments-vows-saying-won-t-beat-me.html

sucks for him, he believed all the pseudo legal nonsense, the delays from protesting previous evictions mean he's only ended up depleting the equity he had in the house with further bailif charges etc.. when he could have probably bought a smaller property with the equity he had otherwise.

and the numpties from the get out of debt free website who seemingly were encouraging/advising him - well they'll carry on drinking the kool aid and giving out dubious and harmful 'advice' to other suckers
 
well for the last protest there were 500 or so from all over the UK - presumably their collective petrol costs for that one off protest could have cleared a significant chunk of the debt in itself

they seem to be playing the cancer patient thing too - I'm not sure that a cancer diagnosis should mean that your bank is obliged to write off your mortgage debt
 
Has anyone mentioned the fact that the bank changed the terms of the loan amount without informing him?

They couldn't inform him, they lost ALL of the paperwork.

They can't even prove how much he has paid in, so where did they get the final figure from? They just invented it out of thin air.

That is the argument. If they don't know what he owes, that he has paid so much.... then how could they possibly expect to receive said sum on a whim?

All seems a bit off to me. Just let him re-mortgage £20k, job done. (While pulling figures out of the air is acceptable)

He was paying into an endowment for years and thought nothing of it, suddenly they've lost the paperwork and tell him it's interest only. Doesn't seem right to me.

You've forgotten to add that he's paid for the house three times over and the banks have had 'enough' money from him.

Let's face it the guy doesn't understand basic finance and has had some rather incoherent rants on the matter. He was going to have a shortfall with his endowment so they moved him to a repayment mortgage to ensure this situation didn't happen, he demanded to come off it and has been on an interest only mortgage for the past few years, so despite not paying off the rest of the capital he thinks because he's paid lots of interest then the bank have had 'enough'.
 
look at the judge's comments above for your first clue

'The points made by Mr Crawford are without foundation or legally misconceived'

I'd suggest you watch his youtube videos, he's rather confused....
 
for example - here he is with two adviser who aren't nuts and into pseudo legal nonsense....


they actually think that the recent refusal of his appeal was a 'victory' and are gobsmacked that a journalist would see it differently... 5:36 onward you can get Tom's rather confused pseudo legal opinion on his appeal 'victory'
 
Last edited:
"YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY NEXT DON'T YOU...."

"IF HE'S HIGH UP.. HE'S PROBABLY A PEDOPHILE"

:eek: Wut!?

ah you've seen that interview... as amusing as it all is I do fee sorry for this tom Crawford guy - seems like a nice bloke, just a bit thick and easily lead. These guys who've been encouraging and advising him really are scumbags and are doing serious damage to people's lives by convincing them they can get away with not paying their mortgages.
 
Back
Top Bottom