Rekha Patel loses her house

[daltontrumbno]

she's doing better than the c-fraud

No, she's just at an earlier stage. It took multiple eviction attempts, over several months, to finally get the c-frauds out of Fearn Chase. That will probably be the case here as well.

What Chaos means by doing better than Crawford is he got arrested and convicted after a brief reentry into his old house. Rekha was evicted in June re took the house a month later and has been squatting with no consequence for three months now.

[TheNewSaint]

I was looking at the bigger picture, in that it took the bailiffs three attempts and almost a year to get Crawford evicted in the first place. But let's not pick nits. The larger point is that Rekha Patel will be evicted, and probably arrested, soon enough.

[littleFred]

Or she may have paid her debts.

[daltontrumbno]

Or she may have paid her debts.

I speculated a while back that she has paid her legal bill and the whole break in and squat was just Bravado of the GOODF crowed, but apparently this is not the case she has not paid a penny of the 72k she owes.

[hucknallred]

I speculated a while back that she has paid her legal bill and the whole break in and squat was just Bravado of the GOODF crowed, but apparently this is not the case she has not paid a penny of the 72k she owes.

Your source for this information?

[TheNewSaint]

This news story sheds some light:

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/ ... s-11677603

The eviction order, which Rekha contends is not valid, was over a debt of £72,000 in legal fees and court costs which she refused to pay.

But Rekha, who was forced to move in with her parents in Stalybridge, has now fulfilled her promise to take back her beloved home. She admits it was by force, and that police were called - but insists she’s in the right.

She said: “We got back in but someone called the police and they turned up. But I showed them all the documents to prove that I was the rightful owner and they wished me well and left."

And Rekha insists she will not be paying up.

She added: “The eviction was simply wrong. It’s like something out of a film that you’d never expect to happen. I hear it’s quite common, people being made homeless for no reason. This could happen to anybody. In the end I thought it would be criminal to pay and fuel these bullies. It’s never been about the money - it’s about right and wrong."

Derbyshire Police confirmed they attended Rekha’s cottage after a ‘call from a solicitor’. After she showed documentation to prove ownership, they left. A spokeswoman confirmed they are now investigating a criminal damage complaint due to the broken board [which Rekha herself is seen breaking].

This is consistent with a prior post on this thread:

Rekha posted in eviction the fraud of the banks [on July 25] that she has retaken her home and that the police were satisfied with her doing so.

The text below was posted to the group with a video of her crowbarring her way back in to the property.

"This is the moment I went back home.
Somebody called 999, the police came and after the paperwork was shown, they were satisfied that the absolute title holder of the property was making good the criminal damage that was carried out on June 10th 2016. They left shaking my hand and wishing me well."

However Patel regained access to the home, it wasn't by settling the debt. The fact that she had to break in suggests it wasn't done legally, even though police were called, and were apparently satisfied with some documentation she showed. I suppose it's possible she has settled the dispute since this incident. But I think it's far more likely she pulled a fast one with the cops, and may be looking at fraud charges in addition to squatting.

[AndyPandy]

The day she broke back in I checked the Land Registry for who had title to the property and she was still listed as the property owner- it takes weeks for the Land a Registry to be updated and we speculated it was this she showed to the Police.

I suspect there are legal issues going on that we're not privy to, if I get the chance I'll check the register again tomorrow to see what it's now saying.

[hucknallred]

I know we should only deal with facts alone (see what happened in the latest TC thread regarding the SMH speculation that I pointed out).

But if I were speculating in this case I'd say she's done a Ravenscroft as opposed to a Crawford in relation to this property.

[grixit]

then perhaps this is another case where we should shut down the mill until another load of grist comes in.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, since there is nothing to report, let's NOT be reporting it.

[NYGman]

Yes, since there is nothing to report, let's NOT be reporting it.

[He Who Knows]

She's telling people in the community "It was all one big misunderstanding" yet the 2-ton bag of hardened cement is still outside her front door as a barricade to bailiffs. Think she must assume people are thick enough to believe her.

[doublelong]

I know we should only deal with facts alone (see what happened in the latest TC thread regarding the SMH speculation that I pointed out).

But if I were speculating in this case I'd say she's done a Ravenscroft as opposed to a Crawford in relation to this property.

I have not really looked into Ravenscroft boat case, do you mean she has paid off the debt but has not divulged this fact to her followers?

[ArthurWankspittle]

I have not really looked into Ravenscroft boat case, do you mean she has paid off the debt but has not divulged this fact to her followers?

I think that is what is being suggested. IIRC there was lots of publicity and comments about the case where the boat was impounded but very little or no publicity given by Ravenscroft and his acolytes when he paid the fees etc. to get the boat back. Interestingly, the Ravenscroft boat case actually had a disputable element which was arguable in law IMHO. Infinitely more so than the Crawford and Patel cases.

[letissier14]

Today over on EFOTB

Rekha Patel
11 hrs
I have had peace for 4 months, thought they may leave me alone.. I got an injunction stuck on my door yesterday saying me and my friends cannot go into my home that I own outright, cased in white envelope, so i suspect they will be visiting me again, I have let the police know and asked for an emergency hearing but I'm still waiting....if people are around to support that would be great in case they turn up, but we have done our homework on the law and statutes and as most people will know in their guts that somebody who has a charge on your property cannot just turn it into a mortgage, its insane, what should happen is the charge remains until i choose to sell the house. I already paid the original judgement figure of £8318 and additional costs of over £8500 a long time ago. I dispute the 72k costs as I've seen no evidence of any breakdown of this. I refuse to be bullied for extortion figures of over 72k. How can a next door neighbour ever have the right to force a sale of a property in which she has never had a proprietary interest in. Even if the woman is entirely right and is owed this 72k the most she would ever have is a security interest by way of a charging order not any kind of property or legal interest. From my file which i got two days ago I found my address has been changed not by me so I did not get served papers on many occasions, my neighbour doesn't seem to like the name Patel Cottage so she told the council she owned my property, and changed it back to 81, i sent the council my deed and they said it appears that i was the owner, so i had to correct them and said it does not appear it clearly states that I am the legal owner, they still have not changed it back. My file also showed three different cases two of which i never got to defend!! It is an absolute disgrace that this is not over. It has made me ill again. It is time for me to stand up to these people! I believe the Police will remain faithful to their oath to protect the people and their property and stay within the criminal justice and courts act 2015 section 26.

Aitken Spence-moorthy Sound like your next door neighbor fuck it up in the head
Like · 11 hrs
Mark Taylor
Mark Taylor ask next door to produce her solicitors invoice... or reciepts of payment to the law firm.... if she has not paid it how can she lay claim its still out standing.... it would be infact the solicitors holding charge as they are the ones owed the money if you lost the case...looser pays.... smell a rat here...
Like · 1 · 10 hrs
Andrew Peppin
Andrew Peppin ... how the courts are allowing this nonsense to continue is utterly barbaric ...
Like · 1 · 10 hrs
Andrew Peppin
Andrew Peppin --- Chrisy Morris
Like · 2 · 10 hrs
Aitken Spence-moorthy
Aitken Spence-moorthy This call back hand Deal's kmft
Like · 9 hrs
Mark Taylor
Mark Taylor there is a fraud going on there ....Police need to be looking in to it.
Like · 1 · 9 hrs · Edited
Coral Melissa Penn
Coral Melissa Penn Rekha so sorry to hear this news, keep strong
Like · 8 hrs
Colin Peters
Colin Peters Please, please, please, stop talking legalese Rekha. By doing this you are playing into their hands and playing the whole evil game the way that they want you to play it. Stick to the facts and go back to the basics and the start of all of this injustice.----- Because your stone slate roof was defective, you engaged a builder/roofer to re-roof the property. ------ On stripping the stone slates, prior to felting and lathing to the existing timbers, he found that the gable wall to the adjacent property had been built ON TOP OF the slate roof to your own property. Obviously, in order to carry out the re-roof, his only option was to cut out the slates flush with the gable wall, which he did. ------ Unfortunately for yourself, it was at this stage that a conservation officer, I believe her name was Joanne Brooks, visited the site and on seeing the cut stone slate edges in the gable wall,-,- ,presumably out of ignorance, -- mistook them for a rare architectural feature known, as what she called them, thackstones, but, better known as drip stones. ------ Unlike myself, you are a school teacher and not a builder with a great deal of experience of stone slate roofs, and you bowed to what you considered to be her superior knowledge. She could not have been more wrong and, as you and I both know, you are now in possession of a detailed expert report in proof of this. - A report which one court has already refused to look at!! You have the undeniable proof that the claim of any architectural feature to the gable wall adjacent to your roof is false and therefore, fraudulent.and look at what Lord Denning had to say about fraud in Lazarus Estates V Beasley: CA 1956.-----"No Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage he has obtained by fraud. No judgement of a court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- I could not attend my good friend Patrick Cullinane's funeral service at 7 pm in Harrow today. Therefore I dedicate any service that I can give to Rekha to his memory in the hope that, one day, I might be half the man that he was. R.I.P. Patrick.
Like · 2 · 8 hrs
Andrew Peppin
Andrew Peppin ... if it was a "rare architectural feature" ... then surely it must be recorded somewhere as such ... If the stone detail, to the gable wall of the neighbour, was of such importance, this would most certainly have been recorded at the local Planning Department as part of a Listed Building status. In the absence of this then the detail could not be considered as " a rare feature " and therefore of no significance.
Like · 8 hrs
Colin Peters
Colin Peters Thank you Andrew but forget it.. It has never existed
Like · 8 hrs
Sally Marie Crocker
Sally Marie Crocker So sorry to be reading this.. this has probably been addressed before , but as owner of a building company myself , can I ask if the builder had any liability insurance. ?
Like · 1 · 2 hrs
Colin Peters
Colin Peters From my information, Rekha has not been able to trace the builder who carried out the works which strongly suggests that he did not have Employers Insurance nor Public Liability Insurance. However, this is incidental since no damage was caused to an 'architectural feature' which has never existed. Existing examples of thackstones better known as drip stones dotted around the country show that they were always built in to the gable wall ABOVE the exiting roof below them. Had this been the situation in Rekahs case, then the remnants of such would be still be visible. They are not.
Like · 1 · 55 mins
Darron Hodgkinson
Darron Hodgkinson Wow I thought this was done and dusted.

So sorry to hear you are still having this crazy claim against you.

This neighbour seems to be able to do things I wouldn't expect most to do. Is he or she well connected to people in positions of power perhaps?
Like · 30 mins

[SteveUK]

Dark clouds gathering over goodfy land.
We must have at least 4 evictions (or re-evictions) in the making.

Just intime for the festive season!

[Forsyth]

I got an injunction stuck on my door yesterday saying me and my friends cannot go into my home that I own outright

While I'm reluctant to rely on the wording, that would seem to imply that returning to the house would be contempt of court rather than needing to arrange another eviction. Interesting.

[longdog]

I got an injunction stuck on my door yesterday saying me and my friends cannot go into my home that I own outright

While I'm reluctant to rely on the wording, that would seem to imply that returning to the house would be contempt of court rather than needing to arrange another eviction. Interesting.

I would've thought that returning to a property from which you had been evicted by order of the court would, by definition, be a contempt of court.

[AndyPandy]

I got an injunction stuck on my door yesterday saying me and my friends cannot go into my home that I own outright

While I'm reluctant to rely on the wording, that would seem to imply that returning to the house would be contempt of court rather than needing to arrange another eviction. Interesting.

I would've thought that returning to a property from which you had been evicted by order of the court would, by definition, be a contempt of court.

If her or any of her cohorts reenter that property - it's straight to jail - without collecting £200

So it's a game of chance !! OK, I'll get me coat ................

[Hercule Parrot]

What's remarkable is the outpouring of sympathetic internet-lawyer nonsense from others replying to her FB post. They're encouraging RP to dig herself deeper and deeper into the hole.

Incidentally, does the normal 8% interest apply to the £72,000 costs order?