Rekha Patel loses her house

[notorial dissent]

And the stupid just keeps on coming.

[TheNewSaint]

Apparently there was a court hearing on 13th March (who knew?) which she didn't attend due to being 'abroad' so her appeal to set aside the Nov injunction was thrown out.

Wouldn't that have been the Chancery Court hearing to settle the issue of who owns the property? From reviewing this thread, I thought the chronology was:

Nov 2016 - Injunction against Rekha Patel preventing her from entering home. She requests an emergency appeal, which is granted for January.

Nov 2016 (later) - The sham sale of the home occurs

Jan 2017 - This hearing occurs, judge cannot settle case due to confusion about who owns it, sets court date to resolve this, matter goes to Chancery Court.

It would seem to me that any March 2017 date would have been about resolving the issue of ownership. So it wouldn't be a matter of merely throwing out Rekha's appeal, but also clearing title.

[He Who Knows]

Having just used the tax calculator Arthur W. found, Capital Gains Tax is only about £2000 as she lived in the house so she can claim private resident's relief. She bought the house for about £160k in 2010, it was worth about £200k when she sold it for £2 in 2016. The next company who bought it for £100 won't have to pay CGT as the gain was just £198. How many times will she need to sell it on to different companies before it's worth the market value?
The stamp duty is only about £7,000 as it's a rental. So her tax liability ain't that great. Quite a scam

[ArthurWankspittle]

Having just used the tax calculator Arthur W. found, Capital Gains Tax is only about £2000 as she lived in the house so she can claim private resident's relief. She bought the house for about £160k in 2010, it was worth about £200k when she sold it for £2 in 2016. The next company who bought it for £100 won't have to pay CGT as the gain was just £198. How many times will she need to sell it on to different companies before it's worth the market value?
The stamp duty is only about £7,000 as it's a rental. So her tax liability ain't that great. Quite a scam

A few points: as they are limited companies I am wrong about the tax, I calculated it as individuals. Her selling it for £2, if legal, isn't an issue. The company acquiring it for £2 when it is worth £200k is. Tax man will want the going rate for limited companies on this sudden gain in assets of £199,998. (I think 20%, so £40k) Same for the next company, acquired for £100, worth £200k, sudden gain of £199,900. Tax please. As for the stamp duty that is £7,000 please from the buyer every time it changes hands, because the duty is on the market value to stop tax avoidance.
All of this could be academic if the court decides she disposed of it when subject to a court order anyway.

[rosy]

If the court decides that Ms Patel owned the house and could sell it, then Stamp Duty and CGT will be calculated on the market value of the property at the point of each transaction, not the sale price. Assuming the market value to be £200,000 each time it was sold:

Ms Patel sold the house for £2. The buyer is liable to pay stamp duty on the actual value of the house, which at the £200k amount bandied about would be £1500 if the property was being sold to someone as their main residence, but as an investment property the amount is £7500. There's no CGT liability for Ms Patel as it's her main residence. CGT for the buyer isn't due as it's charged on the profit at the point of disposal, and at that moment they haven't disposed of it.

The property was then sold for £100. Again, the buyer has to pay stamp duty of £7500. There's no capital gain made for the seller as £98 is under their exemption and the actual value of the house is still £200,000, so no profit, and no liability for the buyer until they sell it.

Now the new owners (who I understand are Ms Patel's parents) have given Ms Patel a tenancy agreement at £50.00 a month. This is clearly under market rent for a property of that sort, so what they will be seen to be doing is gifting their daughter the amount between the market rent and the actual rent each month. They can each give their daughter £3000 a year without it affecting their estate, as long as they survive seven years after making that gift. If one or both die within seven years of making the gift, the amount falls into their estate(s) and may attract Inheritance Tax at 40%.

I've had a very quick look at Rightmove and it looks like a market rent for the property will be between £500 and £750 pcm, which means each parent is gifting Ms Patel between £225 and £350 a month or between £2700 - £4200 per year. There are implications for their tax planning here, plus they now own an additional property on which they will have to pay CGT (or their estate will) on disposal.

And, of course, Ms Patel still owes her neighbour £loadsacash.

The more likely alternative is that the Chancery court rules all of these transactions as null and void.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The property was then sold for £100. Again, the buyer has to pay stamp duty of £7500. There's no capital gain made for the seller as £98 is under their exemption and the actual value of the house is still £200,000, so no profit, and no liability for the buyer until they sell it.

No, you can't sell a £200k asset for £98 without the tax man wanting a cut. Which ever way the tax man argues it, there is something going on so that he is being short changed.

[Burnaby49]

The property was then sold for £100. Again, the buyer has to pay stamp duty of £7500. There's no capital gain made for the seller as £98 is under their exemption and the actual value of the house is still £200,000, so no profit, and no liability for the buyer until they sell it.

No, you can't sell a £200k asset for £98 without the tax man wanting a cut. Which ever way the tax man argues it, there is something going on so that he is being short changed.

In Canada if you sell anything non-arm's length for less than it's fair market value you are deemed to have sold at fair market value. However, in this case, value would be irrelevant because the sale of your Principal Residence (your own home) is tax free. So Rheka would not be taxed here no matter what the sales price. Her parents would be deemed to have paid current fair market value at the time of the sale. This could be relevant for any subsequent disposition if they did not live in it. So if Rheka sold the home to her parents for £98 and they immediately sold it arm's length at market nobody would be taxed.

[Hercule Parrot]

Ms Patel sold the house for £2. The buyer is liable to pay stamp duty on the actual value of the house, which at the £200k amount bandied about would be £1500 if the property was being sold to someone as their main residence, but as an investment property the amount is £7500. ..

Baron Von TrampBeard fronted one of these fake purchases, didn't he? Would be delicious if the taxman swooped in and seized the £7,100 held by his ex-wife's solicitor. Unlikely, I know. But would make me smile for a week....

[He Who Knows]

Yes the director of Land & Property Protection Aliance Ltd was David Anthony Ward (d.o.b May 1961, wow is he only in his 50s?) However his directorship only lasted from 14/11/16 to 25/11/16 when Wrecker's dad Jerambhai took over as sole director according to Companies House. So unfortunately Baron von Trampbeard has got away with forking out the £7,500 stamp duty held on Fiona Bruce's account. Never mind he can spend it on his 7.5 ton wagon for which he has no HGV licence.

[longdog]

Never mind he can spend it on his 7.5 ton wagon for which he has no HGV licence.

At his age he most likely has a 7.5 tonne licence and doesn't need an HGV ticket. People who passed their driving test before a certain date got 7.5 tonne entitlement free with their car licence.

[The Observer]

Never mind he can spend it on his 7.5 ton wagon for which he has no HGV licence.

At his age he most likely has a 7.5 tonne licence and doesn't need an HGV ticket. People who passed their driving test before a certain date got 7.5 tonne entitlement free with their car licence.

Unfortunately "Baron of the Road" is not really that catchy of a title.

[rosy]

If he went over traditionally surfaced streets instead of those surfaced with tarmac, he could be Baron Cobble(r)s.

Is he still living at the Sally Ann? At least he'll get some decent food and the chance to wash.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Never mind he can spend it on his 7.5 ton wagon for which he has no HGV licence.

At his age he most likely has a 7.5 tonne licence and doesn't need an HGV ticket. People who passed their driving test before a certain date got 7.5 tonne entitlement free with their car licence.

1997 IIRC. I has one (along with several other entitlements the youngsters don't get like towing).

[SteveUK]

From Ireland - but a damning criticism of this sort of thing

A High Court judge has strongly criticised “shadowy advisers” who he said are giving flawed legal advice to those challenging repossession orders.

The comments were made by Mr Justice Seamus Noonan when giving judgment on an application by Mark Flynn and Mairead Flynn from Derry Shercock, Co Cavan who had appealed against an order of Cavan Circuit Court granting KBC Bank possession of their home.

They wanted the repossession order set aside on grounds including that the Circuit Court lacked the jurisdiction to make the order because the property does not have a rateable valuation, and that evidence was withheld from the Circuit Court.

In dismissing all grounds of the action the Judge said it was a matter of “considerable concern” people are being “duped by anonymous parties into paying money to them on the basis of so called legal advice about their rights and entitlements.”

This advice was being given by “shadowy advisers who profess to have legal knowledge but in fact possess none.” These advisers are “unregulated and uninsured,” he added.

The judge said recently many persons are coming before the High Court, without a solicitor or barrister representing them, seeking to challenge repossession orders made against their property.

Legal papers presented on their behalf have been “ineptly drafted” and the applications were “doomed to fail.”

These unfortunate parties were being “left exposed to much higher level of legal costs they should be”, he said.

KBC Bank Ireland Ltd sought an order for repossession against the Flynns who entered into a mortgage agreement with KBC in 2006.

KBC said mortgage repayments were defaulted since November 2011, and it made a demand for a sum of €250,000. Last March KBC secured a possession order against the couple.

The judge also noted that Mr Flynn had claimed he is entitled under the 2009 Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act to have his mortgage assigned to a entity called “The People’s Mortgage Protection Vehicle (PMPV)”.

Mr Flynn said PMPV has apparently given him and others advice to the effect that his mortgage should be transferred to this entity enabling him to defeat the bank’s claim.

Mr Flynn had also claimed he had been making payment to the (PMPV). “If this is so, and certainly if it applies to others like Mr Flynn this is a very worrying development” the Judge said.

The suggestion that others like the Flynns and can somehow defeat the banks claim by assigning their interest in the property to a third party is “utterly misguided and spurious”.

The Judge said the Flynns were not entitled to redeem the sums due on the mortgage that remain outstanding. There is no question of the defendants having a right to require KBC to transfer the mortgage to any their party.

The judge said the people like the Flynns who find themselves in financial distress are making “a bad situation worse” by consulting “hob lawyers” who hold out “false hope” for them.

People in such situations would be better off seeking to deal with the creditors directly or through properly qualified advisers. The Judge also said people should speak to organisations that can provide proper assistance such as MABS, Insolvency Service of Ireland, FLAC and other non for profit groups.

It was regrettable that the Flynns ignored invitations from KBC to enter into dialogue and had instead pursued the “futile and highly damaging alternative of contesting their case on the basis of so called advice from person not qualified to give it.”

Aodhan O’Faolain, Ireland International News Agency Ltd.

[Hercule Parrot]

From Ireland - but a damning criticism of this sort of thing

A High Court judge has strongly criticised “shadowy advisers” who he said are giving flawed legal advice to those challenging repossession orders.

The comments were made by Mr Justice Seamus Noonan when giving judgment on an application by Mark Flynn and Mairead Flynn from Derry Shercock, Co Cavan who had appealed against an order of Cavan Circuit Court granting KBC Bank possession of their home.......

He made similar comments in Jan 2017, seems the message isn't getting there yet -

A High Court judge has criticised the quality of certain legal advice being given to persons representing themselves in challenges to repossession orders made by the Circuit Court.

Mr Justice Seamus Noonan made the comments on Monday after he dismissed several similar but unrelated actions aimed at challenging repossession orders made by Circuit Court judges.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-an ... -1.2939247

[He Who Knows]

This is how Chrisy Morris and Rekha Patel's friend Stef Shambala spins it on her Facebook page:

Stef Shambala
12 May at 07:50 ·

One day a woman spends all her hard earned cash on buying her own beautiful house outright, she fixes it up and the neighbour complains that "flackstones" were removed when the roof was renewed....the woman is horrified her builder did that and pays the neighbour....& court costs totalling £17,000, now the neighbour wants more...she wants the actual fucking house and it seems like the courts want it too....or someone does....they kicked her out in 2016 & friends got her back in and this is where chrissy got arrested, protecting an innocent women from the dirtiness of the judiciary system....the most ridiculous case of broad daylight robbery and it's not even a joke, this shit goes on hundreds of times everyday!
The people are now fighting back using the laws as weapons against the system that created them....this cartoon system will crash down when the people stop shitting their pants at false laws.....with love & humour we are taking back the power & once again this is all about money, the false god.....I mean, THERE WASNT EVEN ANY FLACKSTONES IN THE FIRST PLACE. 19th June...Rekha has her say.

(Sounds like the next hearing is on 19th June - Chancery Division, Manchester Civil Courts)

[He Who Knows]

Colin Peters has made a few comments on Chrisy Morris's page about Channel 4's Battling the Bailiffs" (see below). Rekha Patel's boyfriend? Or wannabe BFF? Or maybe her expert witness in the Chancery Division hearing on Monday 19th June?

LikeShow More Reactions
·
4
· 9 hrs
Colin Peters
Colin Peters I've got to admit Chrisy that I was bitterly disappointed. I have been involved in Rekha's case for the last 12 months and am in possession of all of the relevant documents which prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that, long before the bailiffs arrived on the scene, she was a victim of fraud and deception which was orchestrated by 2 females, one a conservation officer, and the other, Rekha's next door neighbour , who had a special affiliation with each other. There's so much that I am aware of but, these two females possessed enough power to be able to influence one of their male cronies to issue a detailed report, (which was accepted by a judge!) on how he would go about removing damaged thackstones with special tools and scaffolding and REINSERTING them into the neighbours allegedly damaged gable wall without causing further damage to the rising gable wall. Anyone at all out there, don't just take my word for it, Go to the property. Look at the rising gable wall with your own eyes and see for yourself that the wall remains exactly as it was when built 300 years ago. It has never ever been damaged in any way at all. How much more proof does one need of FRAUD AND DECEPTION? For all of his efforts in this matter, Chrisy has been fined £1000. The reality is that, in his alleged obstruction of the bailiffs, Chrisy was acting as a a decent law abiding citizen in trying to prevent an injustice because they were there acting on false information.
LikeShow More Reactions
·
7
· 9 hrs · Edited
Chrisy Morris
Chrisy Morris It's a start mate x
LikeShow More Reactions
·
2
· 9 hrs
Colin Peters
Colin Peters I agree Chrisy but (apart from my own) have never ever seen such a blatant case of injustice together with the indisputable proof of the same. The corrupt and incestuous 'system' want to keep this kind of thing in wraps. It's up to you and I, and all other right minded people to publicise.
Like
·
2
· 9 hrs
Chrisy Morris
Chrisy Morris Big love bro xxx

[daltontrumbno]

Someone posted a while back that Rekha is back in court on Monday 19/6. Does anyone know if this is still going ahead and what the hearing could be for.

[noblepa]

Did any court ever make a ruling on the sham sales of her house?

[Hercule Parrot]

Eventually the courts will tire of this, and make a decisive order (as they did with Tom Crawfraud). An injunction prohibiting entry to the premises, perhaps endorsed with a Penal Notice (meaning that breach may result in jail).

Rekha can continue to mess them about, probably for another 6-12 months before things get really ugly. But she needs to remember that all the costs for lawyers, bailiffs etc are going to be recovered from the sale of her house. Every delaying tactic has a cash cost, to the debtor. These tactics make sense if you're hopelessly bankrupt and have nothing left to lose, but for people who have the option to walk away with some capital it's a terrible, nihilistic parade of self-harming behaviour.

(And of course there's a special circle of hell for the 'activists' who encourage debtors towards this)