Rekha Patel loses her house

[The Observer]

Strangely, although the estate agent's front external photo shows the house with windows and doors sealed up, the interior pics are of the house fully furnished and obviously lived-in. Not sure what that indicates.

Well, if it means that the house is being advertised as "furnished", I would have to wonder does that mean that the buyer has to take in Wrecka as well?

[He Who Knows]

Reeds Rains internal shots are the same as the last estate agent's internal shots, ie the contents haven't moved. I'm guessing the solicitors aren't gonna risk her coming back for her stuff without a 24 hour security presence watching her every move. Maybe when they sell it she'll be able to pick up all her belongings from a skip outside surrounded by dog patrol.

[aesmith]

It's quite normal for estate agents to show photos with the current (or previous) owner's furniture in place. Irrespective of practicality in normal sales, houses generally look better furnished. I wouldn't take it to imply that the furnishings are included, or even that the house is currently furnished, they may just be the same photos we saw before.

[ArthurWankspittle]

For those playing along in the colonies, it is normal to sell a property with "vacant possession" but that requirement only becomes applicable at the point the seller moves out and the new purchaser gets possession. There is a whole load of law and case law about being late, not emptying the place out, etc. etc. If Rekha doesn't move her stuff out when she gets offered the chance, the next owner can get compensation for her stuff being in the way and having to dispose of it.

[longdog]

If Rekha doesn't move her stuff out when she gets offered the chance, the next owner can get compensation for her stuff being in the way and having to dispose of it.

I have a sneaking suspicion that's exactly what's going to happen. She'll be offered an appointment to remove her crap from her former home and because she's a stubborn and deluded nut-job she'll refuse to remove her shit from 'her' home because she still believes it IS her home. As a result it'll end up being skipped and she'll foot the bill from the proceeds of the sale.

[TheNewSaint]

What about all Rekha's prior evictions? Could the court argue she's already had plenty of time and explicit orders to move out, and skip straight to disposing of it?

[longdog]

What about all Rekha's prior evictions? Could the court argue she's already had plenty of time and explicit orders to move out, and skip straight to disposing of it?

I would imagine the courts would back any course of action which was reasonable in all of the circumstances. Given that she has treated the orders of the court with contempt so far and cannot be trusted to have unescorted access to the property it's highly unlikely she would be allowed back on the property without a large security presence and probably the assistance of the police if they are willing to attend... Which is doubtful. My best guess would be the house will be cleared by a removals firm and RP will foot the bill for the removal and storage in much the same way as in Tom Crawford's case.

[The Observer]

Perhaps Wrecka will get hold of a parking boot and clamp herself to the furniture inside the house.

[notorial dissent]

I'm just hoping that as part of the sale order that the court issues a permanent stay away order to Wrekha and her minions/landlords/whatever for the sake of the new owner's peaceful enjoyment, should also have one issued for the benefit of the neighbor as well. If I were buying the property I would insist on it.

[ArthurWankspittle]

I can't see that you could include such a clause in the purchase contract. However, as a residential property it is a criminal offence to "squat" in it. The new owner has the protect of this and burglary type laws, plus, as I have already pointed out, the law is very reluctant to prosecute home owners if someone "happened" to get injured while they were breaking into your home. (Killing them with an unregistered firearm is treated a bit differently.)

[AndyPandy]

I can't see that you could include such a clause in the purchase contract. However, as a residential property it is a criminal offence to "squat" in it. The new owner has the protect of this and burglary type laws, plus, as I have already pointed out, the law is very reluctant to prosecute home owners if someone "happened" to get injured while they were breaking into your home. (Killing them with an unregistered firearm is treated a bit differently.)

At some point in the criminal proceedings (probable if she's found guilty and prior to sentencing) the probation service will become involved, one of the aspects of what they do is to assess the possibility of reoffending.

So either she'll fail to co-operate with the probation service ( not very clever ) or she'll bombastically insist the property remains hers and will state her intention to continue to attend her property and to harass her poor previous neighbour.

If that's noted or she's a failure to attend any probation interview ordered, then a restraining order will in most likely be put in place by the Judge.

[Gregg]

For those playing along in the colonies, it is normal to sell a property with "vacant possession" but that requirement only becomes applicable at the point the seller moves out and the new purchaser gets possession. There is a whole load of law and case law about being late, not emptying the place out, etc. etc. If Rekha doesn't move her stuff out when she gets offered the chance, the next owner can get compensation for her stuff being in the way and having to dispose of it.

Might I suggest a bonfire and perhaps exorcism....?

[Wakeman52]

There is indeed a 'Security Dog Unit' van parked at the top of Simmondley Village; seen by friends who visited the nearby (& recently reopened) Hare & Hounds pub a few days ago.

On the subject of exclusion orders, didn't Tom C have one imposed which prevented him from going anywhere near his old bungalow? Is that still in force? You'd think that Plexus Law would be aware and so would be seeking a similar restraint on Ms P (& possibly Mr McD).

[ArthurWankspittle]

There is indeed a 'Security Dog Unit' van parked at the top of Simmondley Village; seen by friends who visited the nearby (& recently reopened) Hare & Hounds pub a few days ago.

Didn't see one when I was up there but I think that was about six weeks back. Might be back over that way soon so will have another look.

On the subject of exclusion orders, didn't Tom C have one imposed which prevented him from going anywhere near his old bungalow? Is that still in force?

I think it was for 12 months so it will have expired by now.

You'd think that Plexus Law would be aware and so would be seeking a similar restraint on Ms P (& possibly Mr McD).

There isn't a plaintiff yet though which could be the issue. You can't get an order against a specific person to restrain them from doing something to someone who isn't identified I would have thought. Once a buyer has exchanged contracts, that is a completely different matter as the contracted purchaser then has a definite interest.

[rosy]

Getting an order for Ms P to stay away from the neighbour and the neighbour's home would be possible, I think, and would have the same effect.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Getting an order for Ms P to stay away from the neighbour and the neighbour's home would be possible, I think, and would have the same effect.

I was think civil court. A Magistrate or higher court could do that as a condition of sentence following conviction but it would have to be time limited and, of course, has to be after conviction, which hasn't happened yet.

[AndyPandy]

Getting an order for Ms P to stay away from the neighbour and the neighbour's home would be possible, I think, and would have the same effect.

I was think civil court. A Magistrate or higher court could do that as a condition of sentence following conviction but it would have to be time limited and, of course, has to be after conviction, which hasn't happened yet.

I thought it was a part of her bail conditions to stay away from the property, 5 miles rings a bell?

[pgk70]

There is indeed a 'Security Dog Unit' van parked at the top of Simmondley Village;

If it's a private security setup, then presumably Patel is paying for this herself (even if she doesn't know it yet), wonder if her landlord will give her a refund to cover it?

[AndyPandy]

There is indeed a 'Security Dog Unit' van parked at the top of Simmondley Village;

If it's a private security setup, then presumably Patel is paying for this herself (even if she doesn't know it yet), wonder if her landlord will give her a refund to cover it?

More to the point, when the house is sold and they've paid the balance of the equity to this Company is he going to pay it back to her !!??

[daltontrumbno]

There is indeed a 'Security Dog Unit' van parked at the top of Simmondley Village;

If it's a private security setup, then presumably Patel is paying for this herself (even if she doesn't know it yet), wonder if her landlord will give her a refund to cover it?

More to the point, when the house is sold and they've paid the balance of the equity to this Company is he going to pay it back to her !!??

The Chancery court ruled the sales to the shell companies null and void, so presumably the Ballance will return to Rekha, but the way things are going there will be very little if any equity left for Rekha once this is finally over.