Rekha Patel loses her house

[He Who Knows]

Interesting that someone on here has mentioned that 'trespassing' would be the more appropriate charge, since it covers both misdeeds: squatting AND violating a court order. It's very easy to prove that Rekha Patel was aware she was violating a court order as, after all, she is a teacher and therefore shouldn't find the concept too difficult (unless she isn't really a qualified teacher and lied about that as well as many other facts to do with this case). Does trespass result in a harsher sentence than squatting?

[SteveUK]

As always- it depends. Trespass is a civil matter , but any damage you do whilst trespassing is criminal.
Squatting in a residential property is now a criminal offence , so the odds on a slap in the wrist will be upped.

[Forsyth]

Think Derbyshire Police don't want to get involved again with this one after it being plastered all over social media and national media for a month after eviction day,10th June. It's defo a case of Rekha Patel squatting which is now a criminal offence (since 2012). Beat police officers aren't experts in civil law & don't know that a non-updated Land Registry Title showing Rekha as the registered owner, is trumped by a Court Order For Sale from the other side.

Some years ago I heard about a tactic used by traders of dubious repute who would take over empty shop units to set up store for a short time until they were evicted. On gaining access to the shop they would immediately (or, perhaps, before hand) arrange for the electricity and water accounts to be transferred into their names. When the police were inevitably called out on the grounds that they had broken in, they would produce the bills in support of their claim that they had a legitimate tenancy. Combined with various claims that the owner wasn't really the owner, or that they had legally sublet from another person who had let it from the owner (and who was never immediately available but allegedly had all the contracts), they would generate enough confusion that the police would declare it a civil matter and leave them to it. The transference of the bills also avoided accusations of theft of electricity etc. and if they were careful to avoid causing damage or removing anything from the property the police were, apparently, extremely reluctant to get involved.

[doublelong]

So they all seem to use the land registry (I am still the owner) as a reason to justify taking their houses back but does a bank who has taken possession show up on the land registry? Or does it work more like a garage who sell cars? As for the land registry it does seem to take time for a new owner to show up as I recently bought some land of my neighbour and 13 weeks later the land registry is still not updated. Also the land I bought was part of a much bigger plot that was divided up into smaller plots in 1922. The paper work is in an old English style with red ink, I think this lot would love it, but there is no seal though!

[AndyPandy]

So this is what the Land Registry has - what's interesting is that it hasn't been updated since 27th June 2016 - normally when you check the Registry it says it's up to date as per the date and time you made the enquiry

Title Number : DY351143

This title is dealt with by Land Registry, Nottingham Office.
The following extract contains information taken from the register of the above title number. A full copy of the register accompanies this document and you should read that in order to be sure that these brief details are complete.

Neither this extract nor the full copy is an 'Official Copy' of the register. An official copy of the register is admissible in evidence in a court to the same extent as the original. A person is entitled to be indemnified by the registrar if he or she
suffers loss by reason of a mistake in an official copy.

This extract shows information current on 27 JUN 2016 at 15:43:51 and so does not take account of any application made after that time even if pending in the Land Registry when this extract was issued.

REGISTER EXTRACT
Title Number : DY351143
Address of Property : 81 , Simmondley Village, Glossop (SK13 6LS)

Price Stated : £162,500

Registered Owner(s) : REKHA PATEL of Hanover Cottage, 81, Simmondley Village, Glossop, Derbyshire SK13 6LS.
Lender(s) : None

and the Charges Register has

C: Charges Register
This register contains any charges and other matters that affect the land.

1 (02.10.2013) Equitable charge created by Interim charging order of the Manchester County Court dated 25 September 2013 in favour of F****s B******y (Court Reference 1IR69558).
NOTE: Copy filed.

2 (15.04.2015) Equitable charge created by an interim charging order of the County Court at Manchester dated 26 March 2015 in favour of F****s B******y (Court Reference 1IR69558).
NOTE: Copy filed.

3 (22.04.2016) UNILATERAL NOTICE in respect of a Charging Order dated 4 April 2016.
NOTE: Copy filed.

4 (22.04.2016) BENEFICIARY: F********s B********y care of Plexus Law Limited trading as Cogent Law of Josephs Wells, Hanover Walk, Leeds LS3 1AB and DX716926 Leeds (reference 279353/1)

[JamesVincent]

If it's anything like it is over here they'll get to it sometime.......maybe. I've been looking in the PVA here looking at abandoned properties and ran into several where the register listed one owner and my real estate guy found a completely different owner because the listed owner had died years ago.

[ArthurWankspittle]

IMHO the sheer fact that there is a court order which impinges on the title overrides anything the Land Registry has on file.

[doublelong]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLmYLAow_-g
Sounds like she has drunk the kool aid

[noblepa]

IMHO the sheer fact that there is a court order which impinges on the title overrides anything the Land Registry has on file.

True, but I would think that in most normal circumstances, the Land Registry entry would be sufficient to convince most people of the ownership.

In the US, particularly here in Ohio, there has been a problem that, with all the foreclosures in the last few years, the banks have not bothered to register their ownership with the County Registrar (our equivalent of your Land Registry). This has led to confusion when the city or county has tried to contact the owner for unpaid taxes or needed maintenance. The banks simply let the new owner (if the bank is able to sell it) register it. For properties that can't be sold, or that take a long time, this becomes a problem.

When a court here orders a foreclosure and the former owners are evicted, the court does not file the order with the County Registrar. That would seem to be a simple thing to do. The court could also order the bank to register their ownership within 30 days. Again, an easy thing.

[NYGman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLmYLAow_-g
Sounds like she has drunk the kool aid

This is another one that will not end well. Queue the 2nd eviction, in 5, 4, 3....

[JamesVincent]

True, but I would think that in most normal circumstances, the Land Registry entry would be sufficient to convince most people of the ownership.

In the US, particularly here in Ohio, there has been a problem that, with all the foreclosures in the last few years, the banks have not bothered to register their ownership with the County Registrar (our equivalent of your Land Registry). This has led to confusion when the city or county has tried to contact the owner for unpaid taxes or needed maintenance. The banks simply let the new owner (if the bank is able to sell it) register it. For properties that can't be sold, or that take a long time, this becomes a problem.

When a court here orders a foreclosure and the former owners are evicted, the court does not file the order with the County Registrar. That would seem to be a simple thing to do. The court could also order the bank to register their ownership within 30 days. Again, an easy thing.

That's pretty much what I've been seeing here. I've looked at a couple of places and found out they were in foreclosure only by my realtor doing some serious research. There's quite a bit of abandoned places out here and I've been looking for some acreage for me and the kids. But yeah it can take years for PVA to update their info.

[He Who Knows]

So to recap, let's play cards. Assume the neighbour plays her Queen of diamonds by pulling out her 'Unilateral Notice' and being the 'Beneficiary' on the Charges Register of the title deeds. However, Rekha Patel beats that with her King of diamonds of being the 'Registered Owner' on said deeds. Then the neighbour pulls out her Ace of diamonds of a 'Court Order for Sale' of Rekha's property which trumps the King and makes her the owner of Rekha's house under 'Section 90'. But here's your Friday night legal conundrum: what if there is no penal notice attached to the Court Order, how would Contempt of Court then work in practice? Wouldn't a more effective remedy be simply S.144 powers?

[ArthurWankspittle]

In the US, particularly here in Ohio, there has been a problem that, with all the foreclosures in the last few years, the banks have not bothered to register their ownership with the County Registrar (our equivalent of your Land Registry).

Doesn't work that way in England & Wales. You own it, your name goes on the Land Registry. You can't repossess (foreclose) and not get title to the place. Plus 99.99% of the time the work is done by solicitors or para-legals.

[IDIOT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q92LIFrfwLU

[JamesVincent]

How very thoughtful of her to video taping her breaking and entering, destruction of property and aknowledging on tape that was indeed her that did those things. And then place the tape in the public domain.

The stupid is strong with this one. Think I made it 2 minutes in.

[notorial dissent]

She also got her picture taken by one of the local papers as well. Nothing like memorializing your illegal acts.

[Firthy2002]

I'm guessing the next door neighbour isn't aware yet. I can't see them dragging their heels taking action on her unlawful return.

[#six]

Just because she has won a battle does not mean she has won the war.

I look forward to Eviction Mk2

[notorial dissent]

Maybe jail time for trespassing and breaking and entering.

[Firthy2002]

Maybe jail time for trespassing and breaking and entering.

Just the squatting could net her a £5K fine and/or 6 month custodial sentence.

https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law/overview

There's no specific offence of "breaking and entering" in UK law however she could be convicted of burglary under Section 9 of the Theft Act 1968 which has a custodial sentence of up to 14 years for residential property.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/9

There could also be an argument for aggravated trespass which carries a £2.5K fine and/or 3 month custodial sentence.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/section/68

So potentially quite costly in terms of money and liberty.