It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hundreds turn up to defend against suspected fraudulent eviction.

page: 1
16

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
Hundreds of people gathered in Nottingham UK for a second week, to prevent a suspected fraudulent eviction and repossession order.




Tom Crawford has been embroiled in a lengthy battle with Bradford & Bingley bank over his mortgage.

In a statement, UKAR, who manage mortgage lenders of Bradford & Bingley, said: "Repossession is always viewed as a last resort and follows a series of forbearance options, with the aim of finding a solution that takes account of the customer's specific circumstances. Regrettably, in this instance, we have been unable to find a solution.

"Bradford & Bingley has followed proper legal procedures and is now legally entitled to take possession of this property following the ruling by the Court and the Judge.

"We have a valid possession order that is enforceable."


www.itv.com...

The ITV news report is very vague and only reported a statement from B&B. However, they conveniently left out of the report the suspected fraud perpetrated by the bank/mortgage lender.

I wonder why?

Here is Toms story in his own words...



Last year a BBC reporter showed up at a earlier eviction/repossession attempt, to get the full story. The home owner was extensively interviewed by the reporter in the video below.

Interview from 22:00 in video below.

The gist of the fraudulent activity is based on a undisclosed power of attorney that is unknowingly given by the homeowner to the bank when signing on the dotted line, as Ceylon from getoutofdebtfree.org explains at the beginning of the video.

Toms mortgage was changed, unknown to him, from a endowment mortgage, to a part endowment/part interest mortgage, and then later changed to a interest only mortgage. Surely the power of attorney may only be used if the homeowner breaches the terms and conditions of the mortgage agreement, allowing the bank to recover any losses.



More on the power of attorney in mortgage deals by white rabbit...


edit on 23-1-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Wifibrains

Well done everyone who went. I salute you all.

Another thread talks about the elite getting the wind up about their actions and public response - this is the first layer of public anger which I bet they will be watching and wondering when the public will turn on the4 bankers and others who collude to defraud us all.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Shiloh7

Is his story that he paid for the endowment but somehow lost all the paperwork showing that he paid it and what its value was? Or is it that he never paid anything back and didn't notice for twenty years that he wasn't paying anything except the interest?

If the second one, then why does he expect the savers to give him a free 41,000 pounds?

Surely they've already given him enough with ZIRP ensuring he didn't have to pay the market rate for the interest.

Anyway hope his health holds out, that seems to be his main problem.



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
It is nice to see community spirit in action and the people come together to ensure a successful non-eviction.

Uploaded today...




posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
From what I understand, the bank "lost" the original endowment papers.




edit on 23-1-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
Saw this on the news earlier.... He's a cancer sufferer and 500 people turned up to block and stop bailiffs evicting him.
If this isn't people power and standing up for the little guy then I don't know what is.

I really wish this was a widespread and common occurrence.

Well done to everyone involved.


edit on 23/1/15 by blupblup because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Why can't some high profile lawyer pick up this case pro-bono and solve this issue for the guy??? Sue the bank for fraud and include damages for emotional distress and everything else they can think of.

Poor guy



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: noeltrotsky

Two words.. In cahoots?

How can they get away with it.

It's a scam that relies on our honesty, misfortune and ignorance of the law...



When the promissory note is signed it becomes a financial instrument, and is valued at the initial loaned amount. The mortgage agreement with signature and interest included becomes the security.

Most people think the mortgage proves they owe the debt, which it does... It's a signed confession. However, if requested the lender must prove they legally own the debt. A judge is not obliged to ask them to, and the whole scam relies on you NOT asking them to provide proof of ownership of the debt, and simply using the confession from your mortgage agreement that you owe the outstanding balance.

Without the original promissory note, there is no proof the claimant has right to repossess. Copies are not admissible in a court of law, only original documents. The mortgage agreement is not proof of ownership of the debt.

In the case of Tom in the op, his mortgage was changed twice, and B&B could not find the original note. There is speculation that other financial instruments were created in his name without consent or disclosure.


Many lenders have LOST the original note and are unable to find it. Think of the promissory note you signed as a cheque. If the cheque you gave someone to cash at a later date is lost, then guess what? there is no proof that you ever owed them anything.

It works the same way with your promissory note and mortgage agreement. The recorded mortgage is simply a public record notice and lien against your home which refers to the promissory note- which is not recorded.

The mortgage agreement is proof of a debt in your name, but in order to have legal standing to foreclose against you, the mortgage lender must prove they are the owners of the debt. And the way to prove this is to produce the ORIGINAL promissory note.

If they cannot produce the original note, they cannot foreclose against you.




If this is true, the case against tom is fraudulent, not to mention his original mortgage was a deception.

I am in no way a expert on these matters, and admittedly do not know the full story. The small print and T&Cs might allow for certain changes to take effect, but when selling a mortgage product, it must be fair and not misleading.

Who in their right mind would buy a endowment mortgage that would later change into a interest only mortgage?

edit on 23-1-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wifibrains

Who in their right mind would buy a endowment mortgage that would later change into a interest only mortgage?


Someone who found out that the endowment part didn't grow quickly enough to cover the outstanding mortgage. He might stop paying the endowment part. This would force the bank to change the mortgage to interest only, so they wouldn't lose even more money from a deadbeat who was trying to squirm out of paying the money he owed.

Ironically, if this guy had kept paying the endowment he would have been in line for tons of "compensation" that the UK government ordered to be given to rich people who had already done immensely well from their investments.

The amount of hand-outs (both from savers and taxpayers) that homeowners get in the UK is unbelievable. If the courts have decided to repossess after the years of forbearance, ZIRP, etc. than you can be pretty sure that the person just refuses to pay. How old is he? Greedy pensioners can get their mortgages paid by the taxpayer and get a cash bonus on top.




posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   
a reply to: supermouse

Did you watch any of the vids? He paid the endowment for 25yrs not knowing it was no longer a endowment. When he found out he contacted them. They sent apology, champaign and flowers, he assumed they had changed it back, but they actually changed it to interest only.

Come 25yrs he thought his mortgage would have be paid up only to discover it will never ever will be paid up.

I like how you try to turn it onto the little guy. Do you work for a bank/lender? lol.

Or maybe you always assume the worst in people.


edit on 24-1-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wifibrains
a reply to: supermouse

Did you watch any of the vids? He paid the endowment for 25yrs not knowing it was no longer a endowment. When he found out he contacted them. They sent apology, champaign and flowers, he assumed they had changed it back, but they actually changed it to interest only.

Come 25yrs he thought his mortgage would have be paid up only to discover it will never ever will be paid up.

I like how you try to turn it onto the little guy. Do you work for a bank/lender? lol.

Or maybe you always assume the worst in people.



I think you meant to say "he didn't pay the endowment for 25 years".

I don't assume the worst in people or work for a bank. I just don't see why he should be given £80,000 or whatever it is he wants. He's had 25 years of extra spending money each month, which I imagine he enjoyed. Now he should pay the debt that's built up. Also, as I mentioned, unless he's rich the government will buy a house for him anyway.



posted on Jan, 24 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
a reply to: supermouse

What!

He does not want any money, he wants his mortgage satisfied after paying for 25yrs like he originally agreed.

If you are not going to read the thread and watch the vids why bother replying? Your facts in relation to this story are twisted around to make the guy look bad.

You don't assume the worst in people but assume this guy has not paid his way, and wants to get something for nothing.

Please, your embarrassing yourself. Stop.

The money the bank says he owes is from the fraud the banks have carried out in his name, apparently.

Where did you get he wants x amount from?
edit on 24-1-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Update: Monday 26 jan




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I've followed this case pretty closely since it first emerged last summer and as usual not all is as it seems. Apologies if i am telling people something they already know and if this is a bit long but there is a lot of detail for those that are interested.

Endowment mortgages come in two parts. An interest only loan for a fixed term (25 years in this case) and a separate endowment policy. The endowment policy is an investment vehicle into which you pay a monthly premium and which matures at the end of the loan period. The plan is that the investment will generate enough of a return to cover the original capital sum and hopefully a bit extra as a bonus.The two parts of the mortgage are usually with two different companies and involve two separate monthly payments; the loan interest and the endowment premium. These type of mortgages were very popular in the UK in the late '80s.

As far as I can tell, Mr Crawford definitely intended to take out an endowment mortgage when he borrowed the money to buy his house in 1988. In 2000, he says that discovered that without his knowledge the bank had changed their mortgage from an endowment to a repayment type in which he was paying the interest and some of the capital sum each month. It's not clear when this change happened but the inference is that it only lasted a short period before they complained. The bank apologised and Mr Crawford assumed that the mortgage had been changed back to an endowment type. However, in 2006 he says that he discovered that in fact he was only paying interest on the loan and nothing towards the endowment policy.

At some point after this Mr Crawford says the bank told him that the endowment policy had been "lost". In the repeated telling of his story the dates when things happened tend to move around. However, he says that they were trying to sort the situation with little or no response from the bank although details of just what he did are sketchy.

In any case, the situation came to a head in 2011 when he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, fell behind with the interest payments on the loan and in 2012 the bank started proceedings to take possession of the house. The court hearing was delayed while Mr Crawford complained to the Financial Ombudsman but ultimately his complaint was rejected as it was over the 6 year timescale. This usually means that it is more than 6 years since the complainant knew (or should have known) there was problem.

The possession hearing resumed and fortunately, because his family were able to clear the outstanding interest payments a "Suspended Possession Order" was granted which would only come into effect if they did not make payments as agreed. However Tom, aware that the loan period was due to end in 2013, was concerned that the bank would expect repayment of the capital sum (c. £43,000) and that there was no endowment policy in place to supply the funds.

Tom contacted the "Get Out of Debt Free" website in the UK, a well known repository of "freeman on the land / sovereign citizen" type advice which broadly seeks to convince people that all mortgages are fraudulent, they don't need to pay for water, gas or electricity, hold a drivers licence, insurance or registration etc. In fact Tom received some very sensible advice which was to speak to a legal professional because on the face of it, it seemed that the bank was a least partly to blame for the situation but that he should not to expect the bank to cover the whole amount outstanding. However, others gave Tom advice more typical on that website and convinced him that he should sue the bank on the grounds that the mortgage was fraudulent etc.

Unfortunately Tom ignored the sensible advice and drank the Koolaid that it's all a fraud and a conspiracy by banks, solicitors, courts and police. He pre-emptively sued the bank on this basis - and lost or rather the judge threw the claim out without a formal hearing on the basis that it had "no merit".

The bank obtained an "Order for Possession" which the court attempted to enforce with court bailiffs in July 2014. This was blocked by hundreds of "lawful rebellion / freeman / Sov.Cit" protestors. The same occurred at the attempted eviction in February.

Since contacting GOODF in 2013 Tom has become a leading advocate of the "freeman" movement in the UK. Travelling around to obstruct other evictions, speaking at meetings and even contacting MI5 to report the "fraud".

I have tried to discover whether Tom has any proof that the endowment policy ever existed, who it was with or how much he paid as a monthly premium. Any of this information would appear to be good evidence that the bank screwed up. However, so far he hasn't been inclined to answer those questions. He fully accepts that he has not paid the capital sum. He just feels that he has paid enough. He may have had a valid action against the bank but he has decided to throw this away in order to pursue the nonsensical theories of GOODF.


edit on 13-3-2015 by NormalWisdom because: spelling correction



posted on May, 9 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
Update:

Large crowd in support of Tom at the court..



The judges decision was deferred and will be delivered (by email) at a later date.


In this video Tom offers some of the evidence presented in court...





edit on 9-5-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Update:

Sounds like VICTORY! I would not put it passed them to try something like this on other people though. so long as they can muster up some more fraudulent legal paperwork.



Makes you wonder how many people they they have scammed and have gotten away with it.

More from Toms son Craig...



Shame on you Bradford and bingley.

Three cheers for the people!....


edit on 14-5-2015 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2015 @ 09:39 AM
link   



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Hmm. So there seems to be some disagreement about the judgement across certain areas of similar conceptions. The press apparently reported that Tom lost his court case in their own interpretation of the judgement, and others seem to agree...



Tom is standing by his guns and remains adamant that the judgment goes in his his favour.

How can a court judgement be so uncertain i ask? This is supposed to be the law and with confusion like this over interpretation of lawful judgment really does make a mockery out of the law and courts.

Tom explains his enterpetation of the judgement along with what he assumes to be deliberately misleading remarks that will need to be addressed should the matter end up back in court.



(Pt2 & pt3 can be found on yt by clicking the link in top of window)

Who clarifies what a courts judgements interpretation is?

Interesting scenario to say the least. I wonder if B&B think they won?

Watch this space! It might not be over...





top topics



 
16

log in

join