A repossessed property listed on Rightmove was yesterday morning abruptly removed.
In an escalating protest, it seems anarchists had attempted to bring both the portal and the agents concerned under pressure.
Yesterday, Rightmove insisted that the threats were not why the listing had been removed.
EYE understands that a removals company may also have been caught up in ugly situations.
The property concerned is the former home of a couple at the centre of a high-profile repossession case.
Tom and Sue Crawford had taken out an interest-only mortgage with Bradford & Bingley in 1988, along with an endowment policy which should have been the vehicle to repay the capital.
The couple are said to have stopped paying the endowment policy in 1992.
After 25 years, Bradford & Bingley – now run by UK Asset Resolution – asked for the capital sum to be repaid, of about £41,800.
A well-publicised battle followed during which a possession order was granted. However, when county court bailiffs tried to evict Crawford, they were stopped by his supporters – painted in press coverage as ordinary strangers sympathetic to his plight.
Crawford appealed, but this failed and the judge instructed the possession to go ahead. At that appeal last month, Judge Nigel Godsmark sent his decision in writing due to fears that making the ruling in public would spark disorder among supporters gathered outside the court.
Earlier this month, Crawford was finally evicted amid further protests, arrests and a 150-strong police presence.
The boarded-up property now has 24/7 security, complete with dog patrols and portable toilet, because Crawford’s supporters say the home is still his. The security presence is reportedly to the huge distress of neighbours.
The agent instructed with the repossession, Roger Hannah & Co, of Manchester, took down the property from Rightmove yesterday, after advertising it as for sale by formal tender with offers to be received by August 5.
Rightmove said it had been removed because it had been mistakenly advertised as land for sale.
A spokesperson told EYE: “The agents only have a membership to list commercial properties with us so they can’t list residential properties on Rightmove.
“We have had some consumers asking for the property to be removed and we made the agent aware of this, but the reason it has been removed from Rightmove is because of the incorrect description.”
Before the property was removed, Rightmove received an ‘error’ report alleging that “the property is stolen”.
The error report accused the portal or the agent – it is not quite clear who the message was directed at – of being complicit and threatened them with “hell”.
It said: “The property was unlawfully stolen from Tom Crawford. This is a very high profile case, not only are you complicit in fraud but you risk severe damage to the reputation of your company if you go ahead with this. Please withdraw from your arrangement with the heartless, soulless, despicable people known as UKAR . . . This could be an opportunity to gain some great publicity but it could also cause hell for you. The choice is yours.”
In one post online, a warning is posted to all potential buyers, saying that the property still belongs to Tom Crawford and tells them not to buy it.
Another post, placed yesterday morning, said: “I would question how ‘duty bound’ the estate agent is to divulge any extraordinary circumstances of the property! Imagine ‘Doris and her sister’ who have been on a ‘get rich in property’ course and are now scouring Rightmove for a hidden gem . . . they are going to get the fright of their lives.”
The protesters, some of whom are said to have had their own homes repossessed, have now formed a ‘grand jury’ on an organisation called Universal Community Trust, which EYE has been told are ready to make citizen’s arrests of police and judges.
Yesterday evening, Universal Community Trust’s grand jury unanimously over-ruled Judge Godsmark’s ruling, demanded that the property be returned to the Crawfords and that all those involved in the eviction be brought to justice.
No one at Roger Hannah & Co was able to speak to EYE in any detail yesterday, but we were told that the case is with the bank which is considering it.
Below, this screenshot was taken yesterday afternoon from the quatloos website used by the Universal Community Trust, which espouses the establishment of “anarcho-nations”. Its aims include “an end to all crimes against mankind” and the “dismantling of all industries” which cause harm. The organisation appears to have branches and links over much of Britain.
Comments (29)
Did you know?
Plotting the ebbs and flows of BOE base rate, adding 1.5% for the average mortgage deal shows had Mr Crawford had some reasonable advice he could have possibly paid his mortgage off in 2009 with a consistent payment plan he was managing in 1992. A plan than would have had him very quickly in credit to account for payment holidays due to illness
In 1993 the interest part of a £42,000 mortgage would cost about £360/ month had he paid that figure through till 2009, 116 month later, what had been interest only would naturally have become a repayment mortgage that was paid off early
Naturally the affects of illness have to be considered but there a few families I know who haven’t suffered the pressures of illness and early deaths of a bread winner.
Whilst there has to be sympathy for anyone suffering illness and repossession the exploitation of Mr Crawford’s situation by those wishing to make a political point is denying Mr and Mrs Crawford any genuine sympathy they might deserve.
Without the attention circus that are exploiting this case Mr & Mrs Crawford could be making a more valid point that the repeated advice to “top up your endowment” was wholly wrong and the main stream media missed an opportunity to explain to the public an alternative tale to the one the bankers, through the media, wanted to tell.
Presumably the cost of the security and policing is being added to the £41,800 debt
“After 25 years, Bradford & Bingley – now run by UK Asset Resolution – asked for the capital sum to be repaid, of about £41,800”. Seems like a perfectly fair request by Bradford and Bingley. And it’s not as though the owners had the request thrown upon them, they had a good 25 years to plan for the event.
Are you pulling my chain Peebee? you know full well 70 miles is local.
Sorry, Robert – but last time I checked myself for a pulse the findings (thankfully positive) confirmed that I’m NOT connected to ASA in any way shape or form – so to me anything more than 10 miles (…and then only in certain circumstances…) is TOO FAR AWAY…
The valid point is that the one of the 100+ residential agents in Nottingham will achieve a better price than someone a full county away.
One has to wonder what would happen if this property was bought as a philanthropic BTL specifically for LHA/HB tenants.
Beats me why the chancer … Sorry I mean fine upstanding member of the public who always pays his debts, has not tried crowdfunding. Seems to be the most fashionable thing. Maybe a few of the onliners could help with advice?
It is very obviously not about the money. I am half tempted at to buy it to provide a home for some genuinely disadvantaged folks.
A nice sentiment Robert, but i fear anybody living there will have there lives made hellish unfortuantley
There are people far more disadvantaged and deserving than ANY of these entitled activists, Hellish would not last long.
OKAY… I’ve got issues with this.
NOT with the circumstances surrounding the property being taken into possession – sorry to the couple and their band of followers but they entered into a Contract with the Lender that, for whatever reasons, they did not fulfil the terms of and have paid the ultimate price as a result.
What I have an issue with is the handling of the sale of the property. They have instructed an Agent who doesn’t deal in residential property, and who is SEVENTY MILES AWAY as the crow flies – 87 by road which is apparently a two-and-a-half hour drive.
The Agent doesn’t even have access to a main portal.
As far as I’m concerned this property might as well not be on the chuffin’ market at all!
Someone remind me – isn’t there a LEGAL OBLIGATION Lenders are under to market a property to achieve best price for a ‘repossessed’ property on behalf of the defaulting borrower?
Actually, no. Someone remind UKAR. I’m perfectly clear on it – and that’s why I won’t handle properties that come from ‘Corporate Client’ churning house parasites.
In some respects this case is a good thing – as I sincerely hope it will highlight the problems with the current system of disposing (apt word) with these properties.
Would the reader who ‘Disliked’ this care to enter into debate as to WHY they disagree?
Comment made Mondo sad, Mondo hit the button, Mondo not sad, Good Mondo!
Even though I haven’t got a Scooby who the ‘Mondo’ you refer to actually is – you still made me laugh, Robert!
I’ll take that as a ‘no’ then.
Suit yourself – you are the one who is making no point whatsoever.
Silly season is well and truly upon us.
I was quite shocked at how not silly this is, the only thing that could possibly escalate it is if Foxtons had a branch in Nottingham.
The only thing missing from the vids is Russell Brand!
Nice to see we all agree on this one….. out of interest………
Based on the next EYE story (CPR2008)….. Would the (eventual) selling agent who dares market this property need to say in the details or prior to viewing:
“Please note this home may be subject to unwanted attention from the past owner or his army of anarchists post your purchase and has previously been the subject to a highly volatile situation with a past attempt to sell, where the agent felt forced to cease marketing”
Not knowing the area nor the news story – would you want to know?
Good point!
I bet the poor couple that buy the property will get a lot of unwanted attention, possibly even threats looking at the stories online.
Just googled this case, apparently he thought he was on a repayment mortgage (despite having an endowment and cancelling it 5 years after taking out the mortgage).
He was also arrested for assaulting a police officer.
Do you think he might be a chancer telling porkie pies???!
I did a similar repossession, the property had been occupied by squatters who had a particularly aggressive Wolf (really) and a slightly more aggressive dreadlock /dungarees leader.
God rest his soul, just as it was turning nasty our ‘locksmith’ delivered a classic retort to claims the court order meant nothing ;
“they were squatters, have rights blah blah blah” ….
“Sorry Love, I’ve got some bad news for you, I’m the new squatter now clear off!”
Being slightly larger in stature than Rubeus Hagrid and as a character in the town known for his work on the fringes of society they left ( with every ounce of copper already removed)
It says on all mortgage information ‘your home may be at risk if you do not keep up repayments on a mortgage or other loans secured upon it’
He stopped paying in 1992, so he’s had plenty of time to save the £41k needed, it works out about £151 a month, should be easy enough if you aren’t paying a mortgage!
He stopped paying the debts his property was security for, so the lender took the home to pay for the debts. Do these people not realise how repossession works?
Also, I’m pretty sure he will get any money left over after all the fees etc have been paid, so surely this is shooting him in the foot? Who will buy the house with that level of security needed? So the price will go through the floor and he will still end up owing the bank money!
Looks like mob rule to me. Nothing like a few anarchist’s finding a nice flag to stand beside to rebel against authority. It would never happen on OTM!!
If i stop paying my mortgage and the bank then repossesses my home they are stealing it?
Instead of looking for loopholes do the right thing.
Surely the wisest thing to do now is demolish the building and plant some nice trees.
“Who stopped paying his endowmentin 1992…..believes the house is still his” why don’t these anarchists have a whip round and pay off his debts of they feel that strongly about it? Typical something for nothingers