Rekha Patel loses her house

[BlueBurmese]

Just came across this one today:

Eight police cars and an ambulance were drafted to Simmondley as part of a repossession order which saw bailiffs batter down a teacher’s front door.

The drama unfolded on Friday as Home Office-appointed enforcement agents arrived to evict Rekha Patel from her 297-year-old home.

The action – over an unpaid £70,000 legal bill – lasted for more than four hours as protesters tried to prevent the house from being seized.

During that time, around 20 family and friends of the 43-year-old Glossopdale Community College maths teacher were behind locked doors in Hanover Cottage.

Enforcement officers arrived at 10am, but there was a stand-off as legal advisors acting for Miss Patel argued points of law.

They continually claimed that the court order was invalid and could not be served as it was a photo-copy and did not have a seal of authorisation.

https://insidetameside.com/2016/06/glos ... al-battle/

Sounds rather Crawfordesque doesn't it?

The eviction was the culmination of a civil court case involving stones in a neighbouring wall which it was alleged had been ‘cut off’ during work to Miss Patel’s roof.

Miss Patel said she lost the trial and went to an appeal court in London, who refused to give permission to appeal.

She was then told to go back to the original court in Manchester, but was told ‘they could do nothing as the original judge was dead’.

Miss Patel said: “I am refusing to pay the £70,000 from the trial as I have done nothing wrong and now they want to take my home.”

Does anyone have any more detail on this case?

[Footloose52]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -bill.html

and

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/fo ... s-to-FMoTL.

[TheNewSaint]

Rekha Patel is discussed at length in the Chrissy Morris thread.

Summary: She bought a terrace cottage which needed roof repairs. She did them without following code, something she apparently has a history of. Her neighbor sued, and won a judgment of £70,000. Patel refused to pay; her neighbor sought repossession of the home to fulfill the debt. This succeeded, while Patel's appeal was denied. Patel then went FMOTL, and ignored a long string of legal orders, until the home had to be physically repossessed.

Also, there's video of the eviction (not sure if it's in any of the prior links):

http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/l ... -1-7974769

[notorial dissent]

They should have prefaced that with Pseudo experts on non-existent points of law, then it would have been closer to accurate

[notorial dissent]

It would have helped if they'd prefaced their comments with pseudo "experts" on non-existent points of law for accuracy's sake.

[grixit]

I'm guessing that any wall near a 297 year old house is itself likely to be old, and would probably have needed a special permit to make modifications to.

[rumpelstilzchen]

From the article:

She was then told to go back to the original court in Manchester, but was told ‘they could do nothing as the original judge was dead’

WTF?

[rumpelstilzchen]

Also, there's video of the eviction

Blimey, they don't make front doors like that anymore.


I can't help thinking how hypocritical this is. Ms Patel's debt is a result of her removing architectural features belonging to her neighbour's house but it is OK for the HCEOs to destroy such a lovely old door. I know it could be argued that Ms Patel brought it upon herself but that does not make it right to smash the front door so that it has gone for good. If architectural features are to be preserved that should work both ways imo. Surely breaking a pane of glass in one of the windows would have been preferable? I am not arguing this from a position that sympathises with Ms Patel, I am arguing this from a position that supports preserving period homes. Ms Patel is an idiot and deserves all she gets but that door should not have been destroyed otherwise the HCEO's actions are no different to Ms Patel's.

[daveBeeston]

I don't think they could have justified the breaking of windows unless the door itself was heavily barricaded and there was no other way to gain access, HCEO's do what is necessary to gain safe legal entry into a property and that sometimes means taking the door off.
The only person to blame for the destruction of another piece of period craftsmanship is Rekha.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I agree that Ms Patel is to blame. But, imo, that does not justify the wanton destruction of period features. Especially when you consider the reason they were there is because a court had decided the destruction of period features is wrong. Breaking that door the way they did gives the impression the HCEOs do not have a brain amongst them. Someone with half a brain would have realised such things should be preserved.

[Angolvagyok]

Especially when you consider the reason they were there is because a court had decided the destruction of period features is wrong.

The court didn't decide that, from what I can tell from all the wishy washy info we get the court decided, quite rightly, that carrying out work without informing your adjoining neighbour is wrong. That's what this comes down to. She didn't inform the neighbours the work would be carried out.

I worked in a 17th century pub for a while and one of the joists went. Sure, it would have been nice to preserve it, but part of the pub would have fallen down, so it had to be replaced.

How would you suggest they get in? Or should they have just gone with the period of the building and laid siege for a few weeks?

[littleFred]

Especially when you consider the reason they were there is because a court had decided the destruction of period features is wrong.

And there was me thinking the court had decided Ms Patel owed £70k, and needed to pay up.

I don't know the facts of the case, but I'm reminded of the GOOFy who had to pay £3500 in costs after losing a parking case. His problem wasn't really bad parking, but the way he tried to charge the council or whoever £5000 for giving him a ticket.

These things always start off small.

[daveBeeston]

Mrs. Patel cut down and removed part of a neighbours wall while doing work on her house without the neighbours permission(or even informing them what they where doing) and the court ruled that she should not have done so it has nothing to do with them being ruled a period feature.

The decision to break down the door was taken after it was alleged that someone had screwed the door frame to the building and drilling the lock had failed.

At the end of the day its just a door, yes it would be nice to preserve these pieces from the past(if it was a genuine one)but its also vital that the eviction process is completed, i think the HCEO's did nothing more than was necessary.

[TheNewSaint]

From the Chrissy Morris thread, here's the original issue:

http://planning.highpeak.gov.uk/portal/ ... ame=122149

After advising Patel that the repairs she wants to do are a bad idea, it tells her that any such repairs require the permission of the owner of the adjoining property, and outlines the procedure for getting this. Patel ignored this and proceeded with the repairs, which is what set off the dispute.

[rumpelstilzchen]

I feel like everyone is ganging up on me. But that's OK, I quite like it.
At this point I should confess that when it comes to period features, I am an out and out geek. If you were to ever to visit a magnificent house and see someone photographing the fourteen inch high ornate skirting boards, that someone would be me. You really should see my collection.
No, I'm sorry, but I cannot bear to see such destruction. I do not care who is to blame, I do not care who owes who. Sometimes you need to step back and pause. No one who appreciates real craftsmanship would have been able to destroy that door. That is why, in my opinion, those HCEOs came across as moronic thugs. They obviously do not appreciate such things. But once they're gone, they are gone for good. It is a shame.
I am only voicing my opinion. I do not expect anyone to agree with me.

[rumpelstilzchen]

so it has nothing to do with them being ruled a period feature.

According to the Daily Fail article link above:

Representing herself, Miss Patel was found against by a judge.

He ruled stones belonging to the neighbour, a 'key architectural feature' had been removed, ordered she pay costs and damages, and denied an appeal.

[Hercule Parrot]

Sometimes you need to step back and pause. No one who appreciates real craftsmanship would have been able to destroy that door. That is why, in my opinion, those HCEOs came across as moronic thugs. They obviously do not appreciate such things. But once they're gone, they are gone for good. It is a shame.
I am only voicing my opinion. I do not expect anyone to agree with me.

I don't think it has anything to do with the HCEO's intellect or appreciation of architecture. For some reason they always seem to go in through the door, and by arduous manual methods with inadequate tools. I assume there's a legal or procedural reason for this.

There are newer, better ways to enter a building by warrant. The Police use various hydraulic ram devices, and there are cordless saws and cutters which would do it more quickly and less destructively. A fire axe or demolition hammer with chisel bit, for example. Or as someone said above, go in through a window.

It's dismal to see a crowd of bailiffs bashing away for 20 minutes like this - a waste of their time and energy, needlessly destructive and also too easy for onlookers to jeer at. If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly

[daltontrumbno]

so it has nothing to do with them being ruled a period feature.

According to the Daily Fail article link above:

Representing herself, Miss Patel was found against by a judge.

He ruled stones belonging to the neighbour, a 'key architectural feature' had been removed, ordered she pay costs and damages, and denied an appeal.

Too much is being made of the Thack stones which too be fair prior to there removal had spent several decades buried under a thick layer of cement so hardly what you would call a key architectural feature. The real damage was the undermining of the neighbours foundations while installing underfloor heating and overloading the scaffolding collapsing the neighbours drains these could potentially cause long term structural problems these issues are the primary points in the neighbours damages claim bu for some reason barely get a mention.

[notorial dissent]

Rumple, FWIW, I understand exactly where you are coming from as I would probably be right there with you. I will have to say that Patel is the real point of blame for the damage, and if she screwed the door shut or otherwise tampered with it as it appears she did, it was probably already irreparably damaged anyway. That being said I am truly sorry an innocent and ancient door had to suffer for the stupidity and greed of that woman. The house is well rid of her.

[wanglepin]

Also, there's video of the eviction (not sure if it's in any of the prior links):

http://www.worksopguardian.co.uk/news/l ... -1-7974769

Ceylon tells us that the bailiffs are not allowed to smash their way in. Wonder if Rekha had been listening to the idiot?
They make a real mess of this her door.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xj3fulrsQIk