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

dowie · 3 Jul 2015 at 01:01

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

Sankari · 3 Jul 2015 at 03:37

These people are idiots. No sympathy from me.

neoboy · 3 Jul 2015 at 04:06

Maybe all those protesters should have actually paid what he owed.

Arthur Hucksake · 3 Jul 2015 at 05:17

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.

Hotwired · 3 Jul 2015 at 05:39

Do you really expect the bank to publish its side of the story? Really?

The story is entirely from this guy because the bank, the solicitors, the bailiffs, the police and the judge are not about to say anything to the papers besides their compliance with the law. As you would expect from professionals dealing with private information.

He can say all he likes and whatever he thinks but it is down to the agreement the bank has with him and the banks ability to prove it to a judge.

Sankari · 3 Jul 2015 at 05:52

Arthur Hucksake said:
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.

Evidence required for these claims please.

Sounds like he had a regular fixed term interest-only mortgage and got upset when it finally rolled over to interest and principal.

Hotwired · 3 Jul 2015 at 05:55

These were the conclusions of the judge:

http://www.nottinghampost.com/Tom-C...-conclusions/story-26504120-detail/story.html

Tefal · 3 Jul 2015 at 06:27

that seemed like a well thought out plan by him.

and hes even agreed that the terms were not changed.

anything I don't mind · 3 Jul 2015 at 09:34

There was that one guy who has paid £1 a month towards his mortgage for 15 years. He walks in to the bank with an envelope and a hidden cam and asks the teller if they will accept the payment or not. They have to accept it because not accepting payment invalidates the loan.

Hagar · 3 Jul 2015 at 09:45

In 1982 I started married life with an endowment mortgage, the only endowment that actually paid what it promised 25 years later (albeit at minimum value). That was due to the tax arrangements on mortgages at the time.

Subsequent endowments (two) were never going to, and we were informed of this by letter with several warnings. We stopped paying them and cashed them in. Lost some money.

Therefore we took out a repayment mortgage and paid the house off.

I cannot believe that with all the endowment hoohah in the 90's 00's that anyone who relied on such an endowment was not told multiple times by his supplier of the state of the fund.

There were a few knowledgeable idiots on this forum a number of years ago who claimed that interest only mortgages were the way to go and with no financial instrument as back up. At a time of massively increasing prices maybe OK but people like this were always going to fail.

EddScott · 3 Jul 2015 at 09:55

anything I don't mind said:
There was that one guy who has paid £1 a month towards his mortgage for 15 years. He walks in to the bank with an envelope and a hidden cam and asks the teller if they will accept the payment or not. They have to accept it because not accepting payment invalidates the loan.

Not sure if it's an urban legend but I think I remember reading about a guy who bought a house, made a mortgage payment and for some reason the payments just stopped. The lender never approached him and then many years later when the lender finally contacted the guy and he refused to pay anything, I think the rules as they are found in his favour and he didn't have to pay anything.

Sankari · 3 Jul 2015 at 10:24

anything I don't mind said:
There was that one guy who has paid £1 a month towards his mortgage for 15 years. He walks in to the bank with an envelope and a hidden cam and asks the teller if they will accept the payment or not. They have to accept it because not accepting payment invalidates the loan.

Proof please. He would be in arrears after the very first payment, and they'd chase him for every penny. Accepting a payment of £1 does not magically evaporate the rest of the debt. 15 years @ £1 per month? No chance.

Greebo · 3 Jul 2015 at 10:46

The_Abyss said:
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?

Correct my first mortage was £47,500 and total amount repaid over 25 years was £145k if i remember right so approx 3 times what the house cost.

dowie · 3 Jul 2015 at 11:04

Arthur Hucksake said:
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'.

pooley · 3 Jul 2015 at 11:14

anything I don't mind said:
There was that one guy who has paid £1 a month towards his mortgage for 15 years. He walks in to the bank with an envelope and a hidden cam and asks the teller if they will accept the payment or not. They have to accept it because not accepting payment invalidates the loan.

what you are referring to is what is known as the doctrine of substantial performance

stopper · 3 Jul 2015 at 11:16

dowie said:
what a surprise the freeman of the land nonsense didn't work out for him

I can't see any "freeman" tactics being used in the case at all (and I know them because I have used them to get out of situations myself), so exactly what nonsense are you talking about?

The bully bailiff's were coming to take his house without a court order, he got on the net and asked for support, hundreds of people came to stop them taking his house unlawfully, he took it to the legal system and lost, now they are "lawfully" evicting him under a court order.

There is nothing "freeman" about it. Freeman is about challenging implied authority, this was just a legal case.

dowie · 3 Jul 2015 at 11:21

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....

TaKeN · 3 Jul 2015 at 11:36

"YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY NEXT DON'T YOU...."

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

:eek:

Wut!?

dowie · 3 Jul 2015 at 11:37

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'

dowie · 3 Jul 2015 at 11:38

TaKeN said:
"YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY NEXT DON'T YOU...."

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

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.